Skip to comments.Trying to Get Even - Democrats keep betting on failure in Iraq.
Posted on 06/19/2006 2:51:21 PM PDT by neverdem
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there. All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.
Let's examine the three assumptions critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy make:
Bush lied about Saddam being a threat. Both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent Silberman-Robb Commission found not one case in which Bush officials, quoting the Senate committee, "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Recall that both the French and German intelligence agencies also believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
If no country would take us seriously again and our brave, but smaller, allies were left to do the same, then the field would be cleared for world government brokered by the elites.
Oh, no. The dems are introducing a new bill? Well, I guess I did hear that but just shook my head and couldn't take it in because, as you said, it's such insanity.
Thank you for linking Fund's article; I'd heard Rush talk about it and then forgot to go looking for it.
I find the "war is going badly" trope highly amusing and irritating at the same time. In any war when you have defeated the opposing army, captured their leader, put him on trial, have helped put in place a democratic government, and have killed or imprisoned a high percentage of the "insurgents", how is the war going badly? Did people think that Islamo-fascists would give up without a struggle? I didn't, but everything considered, we have done very well. And when a firing squad puts a volley through the worthless body of Saddam Hussein, we'll be doing even better.
Betting on failure....now there's a way to win the hearts and minds of the American public.
"Democrats......Betting on Failure"
Perfect bumper sticker and talking point for the Pubbies
I remember that story and the short shrift it was given by the media. They claimed Saddam had no wmds. Well then our troops were attacked by "insurgents" who fired sarin gas projectiles at them. David Kay sneered at the news proclaiming them old. Now farmers in Europe are still being killed occasionally by old shells from WWI. But according to Kay, sarin gas is a harmless agent when it's not brand new. Completely ignoring the fact that our troops had Saddams's WMDS!!!! fired at us and a few of the troops had to be treated for exposure to the agent. But because the terrorists didn't know how to use them properly, the incident was not newsworthy to Kay or Big Media.
The obvious fact is that Hussein had wmds and he had every intention of making more of them. For use against us. The media is just ignoring the wmd elephant in the corner of the room.
Then they are dumber then dirt
This war is not about any party
It's not so much that Dems. hate America, though some do. It's that they hate Bush more than they love America and they view everything through that twisted prism. Whatever is good for America right now is good for Bush, and so with their skewed priorities they prefer to see America fail even losing a war than to see Bush receive credit or have something to build a legacy on. They seethe with such jealousy for Bush that they cannot see beyond their emotions regarding the man. And so their wishes and desires are all centered on wanting to see Bush fail regardless of what that means for the nation. It's sick and depraved.
I have seen John Fund on some TV talk shows, where I feel like he has kind of "liberaled up" his views, but on this article, I agree with him.
(Trying to Get Even - Democrats keep betting on failure in Iraq.)
If they believed in God they'd pray for it too.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
What amazes me though is that our side never raises these facts as a rebuttal to the libs' claims that Bush 'lied' us into the war. If you say to a lib that we went to war against Hussein because he had already declared war on us by firing on our pilots -- there are only 2 ways they can respond. Either they can argue that the missile attacks on our pilots weren't serious enough to justify our going to war, or they can argue that our pilots deserved to be shot and, thus, the missile attacks didn't present a valid reason for us going to war. Either argument is political suicide, which is exactly why they need to be forced to confront the issue.
In addition to the activities detailed here on Iraq's attempts to develop delivery systems beyond the permitted UN 150km, ISG has also developed information on Iraqi attempts to purchase proscribed missiles and missile technology. Documents found by ISG describe a high level dialogue between Iraq and North Korea that began in December 1999 and included an October 2000 meeting in Baghdad. These documents indicate Iraqi interest in the transfer of technology for surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1300km (probably No Dong) and land-to-sea missiles with a range of 300km. The document quotes the North Koreans as understanding the limitations imposed by the UN, but being prepared "to cooperate with Iraq on the items it specified". At the time of OIF, these discussions had not led to any missiles being transferred to Iraq. A high level cooperating source has reported that in late 2002 at Saddam's behest a delegation of Iraqi officials was sent to meet with foreign export companies, including one that dealt with missiles. Iraq was interested in buying an advanced ballistic missile with 270km and 500km ranges.
They want to lose this war in Iraq because there is a Republican that they hate in charge of it. It is that simple. America's loss in Iraq is the Democrat party's gain if it makes and GOP President look bad and helps the Dems win elections. They are traitors. Period.