To lily-livered poltroons and turn-tail apologists for Saddam Hussein, Vice President Dick Cheney's powerful rejoinder Monday in Nashville felt like a scathing indictment.
In witheringly forceful language, the blunt-speaking, sharp-witted Veep cut right to the chase, piercing through the bosh and drivel like a jackknife, laying out the case, step-by-step, for preemptively moving against Saddam -- before it's too late.
Suddenly, the Scowcrofts and Eagleburgers -- rightful nominees for the Neville Chamberlain award as craven appeasers -- are on the defensive, their quixotic, 'hands-across-the-world', 'let's-all-get-along-and-sing-kumbaya-ism discredited as hopelessly naive.
Scowcroft & Eagleburger, dumb and dumber, just the crowd to lecture us on Iraq, right? Yeah, right.
With clearness of thought and purpose, Cheney gave a national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars the true lowdown on Saddam, to wit, that he seeks "domination of the entire Middle East," "control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies" and to "threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States ... to nuclear blackmail."
"Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes a grave threat as can be imagined," declared the Vice President.
Cheney noted this war began on September 11th, when 3,000 of our fellow citizens were savagely massacred -- the most barbaric act of domestic terrorism in American history.
"Wars are never won on the defensive," Cheney observed. "We must take the battle to the enemy."
He deemed "deeply flawed" suggestions from some to wait till Saddam acquires nuclear weapons before pre-emptive action is taken.
"Saddam would simply be emboldened, and it would become even harder for us to gather friends and allies to oppose him," said Cheney.
In response to skeptics who say the risks are too high, Cheney turns the tables, noting this is a 'heads-I-win, tails-you-lose' sort of "argument." If attacking Iraq is too dangerous today, imagine what quislings will say once Saddam acquires the bomb?
Cheney's theme, from start to finish, was glaring: Get on board, or get the heck out of the way. While critics smugly take pot shots from the peanut gallery, this White House makes no apologies -- Saddam Hussein must go.
In short, the speech was a master stroke of strategic thinking, a bold blueprint for phase II of the War on Terror, per the Bush Doctrine, and a pointed rebuke of officials from the former Bush administration who botched Iraq foolishly the first time around.
To them, the message from Cheney is: Put a sock in it, boys, this time, we're going to do it right.
Responding to suggestions from former Sec. James Baker III that the U.S. seek U.N. blessing for military action, Cheney says, you've got to be kidding (or words to that effect).
Besides, America need not beg permission from Chi-Com China to defend her interests.
To long-suffering Iraqis, the victims of Saddam's monstrous tyranny, Cheney says 'help is on the way'.
The reaction from pundits? If Chris Matthews is any indicator, Democrats are in deep doo-doo. Monday the Hardball host ranted and raved, flailing away like a madman -- more than the usual. Like many Democrats, Matthews is lip-locked to Saddam, and gets his nose out of joint if you dare -- dare! -- hint support for military action.
When Matthews is smoldering angry, rest assured this White House is doing it right.
Democrats, never want to place terribly high value on national security, are a party precariously in disarray in this post-9/11 world.
On many levels, the Democrats are a profile of a party mired in crisis. Its credibility battered, Democrats struggle mightily against a tide of national unity and feelings of patriotism in the aftermath of 9/11.
After months of ripping the President as a liar, a crook and a traitor, Democrats seem oddly chagrin that polls show voters still firmly in Bush's camp, with nearly 7 in 10 approving his job performance. Clearly, the public has tuned out the critics completely -- the reason Democrats have failed to lay a glove on Bush politically. Like hurling Jello-O against a wall, nothing seems to stick.
Even on corporate reform, hailed for months by the media as an area where Bush seemed 'vulnerable', el hombre de Tejas decisively smoked out the Democrats.
On the War on Terror, arguably the pre-eminent issue of our time, Democrats are dangerously on defense, the growing party splits and schisms threatening their hold of the Senate as November approaches. Long-shot hopes of recapturing the House now appear more elusive than ever. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's primary defeat in Georgia last week exacerbates these tensions. The McKinney camp sees a "Jewish plot" behind her humiliating loss to upstart challenger Denise Majette, a former State Judge whose outspoken support for Israel drives party militants climbing up the wall. Growing anti-Jewish sentiment among prominent black Democrats in Congress alienates party moderates, specifically Jewish voters, a traditionally bedrock constituency of a once-vaunted Democrat coalition.
An angry Rep. Bernice Johnson, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, blasted Jews for "putting millions [of dollars] into a race to unseat one of our leaders,", strongly insinuating 'Jewish money' plays an inordinate role in 'picking' leaders of the black community. "J-E-W-S" are to blame for his daughter's troubles, said veteran Georgia state Rep. Billy McKinney, spelling the word out on Atlanta TV on the eve of elections. He accused the Jews of 'buying' 'everybody'.
Black U.S. Rep. Earl F Hillard (D-Alabama), another anti-Jewish firebrand, this year was similarly defeated by a black primary challenger attracting strong Jewish support.
Mixed messages from Democrats on Saddam Hussein reveal deep fissures in the party, and remind voters why they trust Republicans far more on issues of war and peace, foreign policy and defense, issues likely to rank high on voters' mind as they head to the polls this November.
The press, hoping to thwart U.S. plans to topple Saddam, in recent weeks went to great lengths to soften public attitudes regarding Iraq, pulling out all the stops to swing sentiment decidedly against military action, all to little effect, however.
The public knows proof out the wazoo exists linking Saddam to global terrorism, and that, as Vice President Cheney so eloquently enunciated in Nashville on Monday, his Weapons of Mass Destruction programs pose a mortal threat to the United States and to our vital interests abroad.
The Scowcroft gambit, supposedly the media's ace up its sleeve, ended with hardly a ripple, illustrating once again how alienated from most Americans Democrats have become.
Sensing futility, Democrats like Chris Matthews are lashing out, loudly accusing the "neo-cons" of "pushing" the U.S. to war. Given that prominent leaders of neo-conservatism are proudly Jewish, some ponder what really motivates Matthews and Co. Is his stance purely a matter of principle, or is his animus towards "neo-cons" shaped by latent anti-Semitism? His antics leave many stunned observers wondering. Mr. Matthews seemed close to the edge Monday night, after Cheney's speech.
As election day draws nigh, Democrats, indeed, have reason to worry.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001