Sunday, November 20, 2005
Oh, you say, these Democrats must have been deceived by the Bush administration's lies! No, actually. Many Democrats clearly understood what a threat Saddam was in 1998.
Saddam Hussein was hugely dangerous, he had a long record of both developing WMD and working with terrorist organizations, and everybody knows it. They knew it in 1998 and they know it today. Those who claim otherwise are either not being honest, or they have astonishingly short memories.
There are many principled criticisms of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. One might plausibly argue -- though I would not agree -- that we could have reinforced containment and thereby deferred the removal of Saddam until we had destroyed al Qaeda. I believe that there are several specific reasons why this would have been unwise or otherwise risky, but there are many smart people who believe it fervently. One can also argue that the war might have been handled very differently, or that we cocked up the occupation's early months and that has messed us up for years to follow. That may be true, too, but since all wars, including ultimately victorious ones, are filled with hugely consequential decisions for which commanders wish they could have a "mulligan," it is not surprising.
It is not, however, principled to argue that the Bush administration deceived anybody about the threat of Saddam Hussein to such a degree that they would vote for a war that they would otherwise oppose. The Cold Feet Democrats voted for the war because they thought it important to their own future political ambitions, not because they believed in it. Now that support for the war has moved from vote-getting to vote-repelling, these same Democrats have decided that they would rather be thought of as gullible -- fooled by the President that they allege is stupid -- than wrong or stubborn (these three being the only refuges available to them). I know this, you know this, and virtually every reporter writing or interviewing on the subject knows this.
(Among the options available to the Cold Feet Democrats -- being gullible, wrong, or stupid -- "gullible" is apparently the least toxic to the Democratic activists. Why should it surprise us that the same people who believe that Che Guevera makes for boffo logo attire should be willing to forgive gullibility?)
Read the Mudville Gazette's timeline, and then check back here later today for more.
IF asked why democrates are against the war they reply " THE PRESIDENT LIED" ( WMD's, CHMICAL WEPOINS AND NO NUKES ).
BUT A REPUBLICAN HAS A UP-FRONT ANSWER " STAY THE COUSE " THE trouble with that is in the last year and a half " ENLISTMENTS ARE DOWN ", WHERE are all the young republicans WHO are for the war but fail to ENLIST AND REPLACE THERE FELLOW COUNTRY MAN.
WHO have been " STOP-LOSED, EXSTENDED AND ALMOST HELD HOSTEAGE TO STAY AND FIGHT TWO, THREE, FOUR TOURS IN IRAQ".
SO WHEN REP.JEAN SCHMIDT and other REPUBLICANS INSULT VETERANS and call to "stay the couse", in the same speach they should ask the people they represent to ENLIST TODAY to show the PRESIDENT , CONGRESS AND the SENATE THAT YOU ARE REALY FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ.
HELP BRING OUR TIRED AND REDEPLOYED TROOPS HOME ITS TIME FOR YOU TO FINISH THE BATTLE AS GOOD AMERICANS ?.
The trouble with that is that number enlistments has nothing to do with staying the course.
It is hard to stay the course and it is easy to cut and run. Have you asked the troops? They want to finish the job. History has taught us that it is better to take the fight to the enemy, you, on the other hand, would want more 911's.
Get with the program