HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 19, 2007 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. As the situation in Iraq has become increasingly more difficult, opportunistic politicians, anti-war media members and those with extremely short attention spans appear to have lost track of what the purpose of the Iraq invasion was in the first place. Even more, many of these individuals have taken to calling it "Bush's war," as if the president is the only person on earth with any stake in the outcome of the military action, and a truly free Iraq. If by chance a democracy is able to take hold and grow in Iraq, if that nation's people can continue to live in freedom with the ability to elect leaders of their choice, will it be referred to as "Bush's democracy"? One would think not. From the beginning of George W. Bush's first term in office, even before, the Democrats collectively have attempted to discredit this man in virtually any way possible. They started by attacking his intellectual capacity; when that didn't stick, they reversed the strategy 180 degrees and said that he was sneaky and conniving. They intimated that Dick Cheney or Karl Rove was really in charge, that the president was nothing more than a pawn in the evil process. They chided him for not being prepared in the wake of an unprecedented natural disaster in New Orleans, even as he offered the full assistance of the federal government (and after he had warned local leaders to evacuate the city). When the 9/11 attacks occurred, some said President Bush knew in advance and let all those people die; others just said that he should have known better and should have stopped the attacks. In the wake of 9/11, many of the same voices lambasted Bush for terrorist surveillance programs, incorrectly referring to it as "domestic spying". When gas prices increased, they blamed it on Bush, when gas prices subsequently declined, they blamed it on Bush, They've called him an "appointed" president, an erroneous reference to the proper decision made by the United Stated Supreme Court after the 2000 election. They've questioned his military record, even as their own candidate, Senator Kerry, refused to release his discharge records (he still has refused to release this information) and in the aftermath of a Democrat draft-dodger's presidency. Nancy Pelosi and others were in full support of sending additional troops to Iraq late last year; once Bush was on board with this strategy, the duplicitous Democrats did an about-face and were suddenly staunchly opposed to any ramp up in personnel levels in Iraq. Once again, Bush had to be portrayed as being on the wrong side, regardless of any impact to our troops on the ground. Often despite minimal evidence to support the various charges, the media has been complicit in fomenting the anti-Bush agenda. The fact that politicians from both parties take turns slamming each other is nothing new and, in fact, it is part of our political process. Still, it seems the level of animus which our current president has had to content with is far beyond what historically has been the case. This is not a column, however, about how everyone's been mean to the president. He is a grown man, the leader of the free world, and he can choose to defend himself as he sees fit. The real problem here is the damage that has been done to the Office of the President, the Commander in Chief and to the mission in Iraq from years of endless railing against the man. Democrats acknowledged a problem in Iraq, even as they held the presidency in the 1990's. The fact that they chose to do little or nothing about the very threat they acknowledged demonstrates a flaw in their character. This very flaw, however, has been used against our current president, who did choose to do something about a very real threat. Ultimately, Bush is being harangued because he took a politically risky action for the good of the country where others were simply too afraid of the fallout. Bush has put his political capital, and that of his party, on the line for the good of the nation. What have Democrats risked in recent history? And in their zeal to nail the president, the Democrats and their media friends forgot that politics stops at the waters edge. They've taken the inter-party fight to extremes here on our shore, and then they took it overseas, where Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and others give speeches mocking our leader and questioning U.S. policy on foreign soil. Now that Democrats have control of Congress, we still see or hear nothing of substance in terms of a strategy for success in Iraq. Instead, we get sanctimonious drivel and ceremonial votes which, again, serve nothing but to try to further emasculate the president. The mindset of most members of the party appears to be, "You got us into this mess," as if their own actions or inaction have not contributed to the problem. Does any reasonable person truly believe that the situation in Iraq would not be better off if over the last several years Democrats were actually working with the president on a common goal as opposed to undermining him at every opportunity? How many lives could have been saved if we could get the collective brainpower of our leaders in Washington on the same page on this issue, instead of gleefully looking at public opinion polls as the president's popularity sinks? How many still could be saved? It's time that Democrats stop acting like they are not part of the problem, that they are above it all. It's also past time to stop the empty political rhetoric that is crafted more to win public opinion and future elections than to achieve success in Iraq. This writer does not have the confidence that most member of the donkey party have a constructive plan for anything. Recent history has shown them to be full of rancorous speech and accusations, but relatively light on actual substance. Let's see them prove otherwise for once. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
