Did you see the Democratic presidential debate in Detroit
Sunday evening? How about some choice gems from a few of the
nine who would be president?
Bush's policy on Iraq seems to be their favorite subject.
As a conservative my fervent hope is that the televised event
enjoyed astronomical ratings. Voters need to see what these
people are saying.
Indeed I think the Republican National Committee ought to
consider underwriting a few more of these Bush-bashing, truth-challenged
spectacles on prime time, sandwiched in between the highest-rated
reality shows they can find. The only chance they have of unseating
Bush is if insufficient numbers of people observe their puerile
sniping.
Senator Kerry, in attempting yet again to spin
out of the damning reality that he voted for the Iraq War
resolution,
had the audacity to insist that his current condemnation of
the war is "absolutely consistent" with his vote
on the resolution.
"What I voted for was to hold Saddam Hussein accountable
but to do it right. … He has a fraudulent coalition.
He promised he would go through the United Nations and honor
the inspection process. He did not."
Senator Kerry, the fact is that you did not condition your
resolution on any kind of an international coalition. If you
think it was irresponsible of President Bush to go to war without
the precise coalition of nations you say -- after the fact
-- you prefer, then it was irresponsible of you to cast your
vote authorizing him to go without that coalition. You can't
have it both ways.
But the truth is, senator, you didn't impose that condition,
because at the time, your political compass told you had no
other choice but to support the resolution. You and your colleagues
devised this line of criticism only after you saw no other
holes in the brilliantly conceived and consummately performed
military strategy to remove Saddam from power. Now that terrorists
are trying to unsettle things in the post-war environment and
weaken our resolve, you and your opportunistic chums are ratcheting
up the bogus criticism.
The truth is that if any of you gentlemen remotely approached
presidential timber, you'd be denouncing the foreign nations
who didn't have the moral character and courage to join us
in taking out this man who ceaselessly snubbed his nose at
the international community. But your version of exhibiting
leadership is to change your position retrospectively based
on political considerations.
True leadership requires making the hard decisions without
benefit of hindsight. And statesmanship demands that you put
aside your personal political ambitions in favor of doing the
right thing now, which is to support our efforts in establishing
democracy and stability in post-war Iraq. Instead, you and
your running buddies are essentially advocating that we reward
the behavior of those who are massacring Red Cross workers.
When you undermine our military effort in that volatile environment
you are playing into the terrorists' hands. Have you no conscience?
And how about you, General Wesley Clark? Is
the following quote truly your only explanation for your
embarrassing turnaround
on Iraq? "Right after 9-11, this administration determined
to do bait and switch on the American public. President Bush
said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead,
he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of
them today. … But the failure of this administration
was not to put the troops in to finish the job against Osama
bin Laden. And you know why they didn't do it? They didn't
do it because, all along, their plan was to save those troops
to go after Saddam Hussein."
General Clark -- I know you think you have to be cute to compete
with the other eight men occupying that stage -- but do you
really want people to hear you making a statement so utterly
disingenuous and absurd on its face? Do you expect even a small
fraction of the people to believe that Bush wouldn't have done
everything in his power to capture or kill bin Laden? We didn't
send our troops into Iraq for a year and a half after we routed
the Taliban. Just how far are you willing to go to advance
your political career? Perhaps we should ask General Shelton.
The other candidates uttered similar canards, unworthy of
anyone seeking the highest office in the land. I just hope
they keep on getting their message out often and to as many
people as possible.