9/23/2003
What is the definition of Irony? How about this; Democrats in the Senate vote in a nearly united fashion to give President Bush the authorization to go to war against Iraq, then, soon after, begin a litany of anti-war rhetoric.
Okay, that sounds more like contradiction than irony, a norm for Dems, but I’m not quite finished yet. What if that anti-war rhetoric bolstered Saddam Hussein’s courage to stand up against President Bush, thus assuring the inevitability of war? Would you consider that Ironic? Even better is when, after stabbing the President in the back, politically speaking, the Minority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, comes forward to state that he is ‘’saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war.”
I think we’ve hit a gold mine of irony here, if you ask me, but we’re not done yet. Months later, Dick Gephardt, the former Majority Leader of the House (who was demoted by the American people in 1994 to Minority Leader), then “borrows” Daschle’s line in desperation to try and reverse a downward trend in the polls as he attempts to win the Democratic primary by calling the President “a miserable failure.” But, lets keep mining, there’s even more gold in them thar hills.
After calling the President “a miserable failure” in two seperate debates with loud and uproarious applause from the angry, ugly left, he decides that it would be a grand idea to create a new web site, “amiserablefailure.com,” to further pander to the angry, ugly left. The mother lode to all of this shameful anti-Bush rhetoric is, of course, the fact that most Democrats fully understand that their anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric has made the President’s job far more difficult and has likely cost the lives of American soldiers and civilians.
Even after the tragic events of 9/11, when Democrats lined up behind the President to support him as we prepared for the coming war on Terrorism, Democrats were just biding their time. They were, of course, waiting until we had reached a minimum safe distance from 9/11 before going back to old habits and launching relentless attacks against the President.
When it was time to act in Afghanistan, Democrats began their first major shift away from support of the President. While the rhetoric was still toned down at the time, many of them voiced their “concerns” over the way the campaign was being run in that country, until, of course, the Taliban completely collapsed and Al Qaeda was running for its life.
Iraq, however, became the primary vehicle for Democrats as they sought to hinder the President’s plans in the war on terror. It was here that the Neville Chamberlain liberals began to launch their anti-war rallies to support Saddam Hussein and to denounce “imperialist aggression” on the part of the United States. President Bush was demonized while a murderous dictator, one of the worst in modern times, was painted as the victim of our aggression. No wonder Hussein continued to openly defy UN sanctions and US warnings!
But, when it came to Democratic support for the war, they still voted nearly unanimously to support the war resolution. Why would these “principled” anti-war proponents do such a thing? Well, there was still a itsy-bitsy problem for the Dems; most Americans supported the idea of pushing Saddam Hussein out of power.
The fact is, any American who possesses the attribute knows as “common sense,” not to be confused with “the Artist formerly known as Prince,” knew that in the post-9/11 world, we could no longer afford to let this madman stay in power. So, American support for the President led to yet another weak-kneed capitulation on the part of Dems, who really do not want to the President to succeed in the war on terror because they want him out of office next year. The solution? Why, vote for the resolution, of course, then go right back to the process of undermining the President’s efforts.
It was all of this on the part of Dems (the anti-war speeches, the “unnamed source” comments from Congress, the support for rallies against a war that had not even taken place, and more) that gave Hussein the confidence he needed to stay in place and hope that President Bush would bow to world pressure against the war. With a divided UN Security Council, tens of millions marching across the globe, and strong political opposition within Bush’s own government, how could Hussein not been encouraged?
Fortunately for us, George W. Bush is a man of principle first, and a politician second. This is exactly why Americans are loathe to vote career politicians from Washington, D.C. into the highest elected office in the nation. They do enough damage just in the lower houses… Why give them the opportunity to do more damage than what is offered at the congressional level?
Will all the Democrat’s bluster stop when Saddam Hussein is hauled out of Iraq, dead or alive, by American forces? Not a chance! It won’t stop then, it won’t stop after Iraq becomes a peaceful and democratic nation, it won’t stop after the next election, and, at this rate, it might not even stop after the goes cold in the sky five billions years from now. The Angry, Ugly Left has succeeded in turning the Democratic party into a pitiful shell of its former self. Too bad for them.
David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]http://www.viewpointjournal.com[/url]
1 Comment
All the qualities of a man acquire dignity when he knows that the service of the collectivity that owns him needs them. If proud of the collectivity, his own pride rises in proportion. No collectivity is like an army for nourishing such pride…. by [url=http://www.free-casino-games-000.com” title=”free casino games]free casino games[/url]
Comment by online blackjack — 12/12/2004 @ 11:44 am