|
Who Cries for Saddam?
by Political_Man
While a majority of the Democratic Leadership has been arguing that the White House is in a “quagmire” in Iraq, it seems that they have talked themselves into a political quagmire of their own. There are some valid points to be made about the way the War in Iraq has been handled but the fervor at which the left has pursued these matters have lead to the most preposterous conclusions. One of the best (or worst) examples is when Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel expressed the sentiment on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes that killing Saddam’s sons last week actually broke the law by violating an executive order that forbids the United States from assassination of foreign leaders. Other circles inside the Democratic Party have brought up the specter of impeaching the President for his reference to British Intelligence that Iraq tried to obtain nuclear material in Africa. And suddenly the party that was infinitely patient with Saddam Hussein and the endless U.N. inspections has virtually no patience at all with George W. Bush and the American military as they search for weapons of mass destruction, rebuild Iraq, create a provisional government, and eliminate remnants of the old regime. Which begs the question; besides the Democratic Party, who cries for Saddam Hussein?
What the left has failed to recognize is that by carelessly hurling arguments at the Administration, they have become the unwitting advocates of Saddam Hussein. In fact it has gotten so bad former President Clinton made an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live in support of the Bush Administration in an attempt to steer the party back toward reason. Let us not forget this is the same Bill Clinton that attacked President Bush before the war by saying that we should wait and give the inspectors more time because we can “… kill people anytime…”
Even if we were to assume that the President did lie about an immediate threat to the United States from Saddam, it’s going to be tough for anyone suggest that leaving Saddam in power was desirable. Further lost on the President’s critics is the fact that the United States is in a better strategic position as a result. Furthermore, most Americans will find it difficult to have sympathy for an assault on the neighborhood bully, even if the neighborhood he lives in is not their own. This minimizes any political damage the President would suffer and the latest Fox News dynamic poll bares this out. Only 12% believe finding weapons of mass destruction to be the most important objective at this point of the war.
On the other hand, the windfall of political gain for the President under these conditions is enormous. If and when weapons of mass destruction are found, any possible questions about the Administration’s foreign policy will be crushed and Democrats are going to look like buffoons heading into the 2004 elections.
Both parties have an obligation to cultivate legitimate national discussion over all matters concerning the country, especially those of war and peace. Unfortunately Democrats, especially the left, have been too busy making the more expediant arguments of political partisanship to be able to live up to their portion of that obligation. This has also had the effect of leaving Democrats with no real national message and no strategy for foreign policy or national security. If economic conditions continue to improve, it could create Republican Tsunami that will crash down on Democratic congressional aspirations and put Democrats in a status of super minority.
The problem is that Democrats have set their agenda at odds with the well being of the country. Not only is this abhorrent, it’s bad politics. If Democrats are betting that no weapons of mass destruction will be found and that Bush’s and America’s reputation throughout the world is going to be ruined as a result of the War in Iraq I have but two words of advice. Surfs Up!
|
