Busted -- Dems lose anti-war argument

TownHall.com ^ | March 4, 2003 | Rich Lowry

[FairOpinion]

The only serious Democratic presidential candidate to vote against the Iraq-war resolution in Congress is Bob Graham. The Florida senator, considered one of the few Democrats with national-security credentials, cast his "nay" vote partly because an Iraq war would distract the administration from the more important war on terror.

The mere buildup to war was forcing the administration to go easy on al-Qaida, according to Graham. As USA Today reported a month ago: "Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said Bush has 'lost focus' on the war on terrorism. 'Osama bin Laden and about two-thirds of his key operatives are still on the loose,' he said."

Rarely is a political argument so directly refuted by a real-world event. In this case, it was the capture over the weekend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the most important al-Qaida operative in the world, at the same time that the United States is undertaking massive preparations for war in Iraq. At least Graham isn't alone in his embarrassment.

The Associated Press reported on West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller's worries: "The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he's concerned that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq is draining resources from the fight against terrorism. ... 'Everything distracts us from the war on terrorism. I don't know how many wars one can fight,' he said."

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold complained of Bush, "He seems so focused on Iraq, and it seems that not enough attention is being paid to the No. 1 threat against Americans, which are terrorist groups." Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski intoned: "Last year, the president said the war on terrorism was the most important thing. This year, he's got a new war. Well, I think we haven't ended the other war." Michigan Sen. Carl Levin said, "This administration seems not to acknowledge that the greatest threat of all is the terrorist threat, but instead has this total focus on Iraq."

Line up the crow, the humble pie and whatever else it is politicians eat when an opportunistic argument collapses in plain view.

Even before we nabbed Mohammed, the Democrats' "distraction" line made no sense. If the American soldiers gathering around Iraq weren't there, they would be cooling their heels at bases in Germany and the United States. There is simply no role for 200,000 ground troops in any other theater of the war on terror, unless Feingold wants to invade western Pakistan (good luck getting the U.N. authorization).

Nor was it ever credible that countries like France would ease up on the terror threat out of pique at U.S. plans in Iraq. Even Paris isn't that suicidal. As for an Iraq backlash toppling a terror ally like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, he faced an extremist threat long before the United States thought about toppling Saddam and will face one long after Saddam is gone.

Finally, the "distraction" argument already looked silly when contacts between the Iraqi government and al-Qaida emerged, along with evidence that Baghdad was harboring an al-Qaida ally responsible for loosing a poison network in Europe. Iraq is an element of, not a "distraction" from, the war on terror.

It would have been easier to credit the Democrats all along had they been proposing different, tougher steps to fight the terror war. Instead, they wanted to attack the administration for failing to round up al-Qaida operatives without offering any policy alternative. "Osama bin Forgotten," the phrase of anti-war activists, was only a taunt.

Worse, Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration's point man on arresting terrorists, cutting off their funding and keeping them from getting here in the first place, has been subjected to a campaign of calumny for doing nothing but prosecuting the terror war Democrats claim to support so vigorously.

The "distraction" argument might finally get a rest. But it was never a line that Democrats, terminally confused on national-security matters, had carefully thought through -- it was just something, anything, to say. Now they'll come up with something else, probably just as inane.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group.

[FairOpinion]

There went the Deocrats argument that we can't "walk and chew gum at the same time", i.e. can't pursue the war on terror and go into Iraq, carefully ignoring that going into Iraq is actually part of the War on Terror.

[Grampa Dave]

[FairOpinion]

What a perfect illustration to go with the article!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Talking Points gonna have to change again!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[smokeyjon]

Joe Biden was on Fox, trying to downplay Mohammed's arrest big time. Huge amounts of spin left and right, trying to claim that his arrest doesn't prove anything about Bush "not neglecting" the WOT.

[FairOpinion]

Right. This arrest doesn't prove anything, the fact that we haven't had a major attack on us for a year and a half (which wasn't because the terrorists weren't trying!) doesn't prove anything. The Democrats are really getting more and more desperate. I shudder to think where we would be today, if Gore had been successful in stealing the presidency, and we'd have a Democrat majority in Congress. And they have the gall to criticize Bush's absolutely heroic and amazingly effective leadership,in face of the literally thousands of obstacles.

I hope that the filibuster will backfire on them bigtime too.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.

[nutmeg]

Great cartoon, Grampa! :-)

[MEG33]

The funding for home land security isn't there, the FBI is not improving ,we'relosing all our manufacturing jobs, we have no friends anymore,the economy is tanking,wehaven't told what the war will cost,how many will die, how long we'll be there' the repercussions in the rest of the world,Cameroon may not approve,the UN doesn't approve,whew. Have I left anything out?

[Grampa Dave]

It is really appropriate after all of the rat senators mouthed their mantras against GW re we were losing the war on terrorism by focusing on Iraq.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this article, it and the cartoon fit like a glove.

The rat senators had a new page from their NY Slimes mantra/playbook this past weekend. They used a new mantra to try and trash GW and his administration.

Their new mantra paid for by their cash Cow, Soddomite said that by focusing on Iraq/Soddomite, GW was losing the war on terrorism.

Their 1960/70's drug damaged minds are incapable of realizing that Iraq and Iran are responsible for most Islamofacist terrorism in the world.

This cartoon just shreds that new mantra:

[cartoonistx]

[guitfiddlist]

Poor Democrats. Trying so frikkin' desperately to trash anything, including - as may have been said in other more innocent times - "God, country and countrymen". Oh, but we are so much more sophisticated than to believe in such things, they think. Maybe, maybe not. But we do recognize the kind of sewer scum that would make such "gutter"-al appeals.

Consume feces, Mr. Graham - and I would be happy to force feed it to you.

[scott7278]

"The funding for home land security isn't there, the FBI is not improving ,we'relosing all our manufacturing jobs, we have no friends anymore,the economy is tanking,wehaven't told what the war will cost,how many will die, how long we'll be there' the repercussions in the rest of the world,Cameroon may not approve,the UN doesn't approve,whew. Have I left anything out?"

Tommy Daschle today accused Bush of planning to raid Social Security and Medicare in order to fund the war. That's how desperate they've become.

[nopardons]

Fifth Avenue does NOT cross Broadway, at any junckture; however, I love the cartoon. :-)

[truth_seeker]

"Michigan Sen. Carl Levin said, "This administration seems not to acknowledge that the greatest threat of all is the terrorist threat, but instead has this total focus on Iraq."

I contend that the pressure on Iraq might yet avert an all out war. That was the strategy. Saddam may yet go into exile, or fall to a coup.

And short of all out war, we might leave most of the hardware in the region, as part of a negotiated outcome--again short of all out war.

So progress has been made, on both fronts: Iraq and al Qaeda. It is far from over.

If Iraq comes to all out war (most probable) Bush can claim he let the UN and Inspections have a go; that they failed.

And that US/Britain+ willing allies moved to safeguard against the WMD "quartermaster."

Come 2004, it will be fascinating to see the position(s) of democrat contenders, and of Bush's opponent.

The opponent (loyal opposition) will be stuck with "coulda/shoulda/woulda" in light of Bush's success with protecting the American citizenry pretty well.

Barring devastating terror attacks, Bush walzes to victory, and GOP picks up seats in congress.

Democrats are searching for a policy line, which portrays them as defenders of our security, but Bush is the guy actually doing it.

[FairOpinion]

Now THAT is the way to get him to talk! LOL

[FairOpinion]

"Democrats are searching for a policy line, which portrays them as defenders of our security, but Bush is the guy actually doing it."
----

Then there is this "little detail" that the reason we are in this mess is because the Clinton Administration and the Democrats ignored terrorism, national security, N. Korea, missile defense for way too long. And now all of a sudden they try to convince people that they know better then Bush and the Republicans.

[MEG33]

They are raiding the LOCKBOX!? Next it will be school lunches!

[Grampa Dave]

Thank you for finding and posting this superb and timely cartoon!