Democrats Curse Uday and Qusay! And Maybe Bill Clinton Too!

For systematic oppression? For presiding over mass murder? For abducting brides from their weddings to rape, mutilate and kill them? For torturing children in front of their parents?

Nah, they should be damned for being so discourteous as to allow themselves to be killed when American liberals were on a roll. Considering all the left did to assure that their reign of terror with daddy would continue this is doubly insulting.

I'd like to say that the preceding was purely sarcasm, but I cannot. The left has never been shy about showing their appreciation for tyrants. Madeleine Albright and former President Carter warmly embraced North Korean despot Kim Jong-Il. They likewise have an affinity for terrorist mass murderer Yasser Arafat, who was the most frequent foreign "leader" in the Clinton White House. Fidel Castro is an undisputed liberal darling. The incalculable crimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong are disregarded as they paint Ronald Regan and Joseph McCarthy as the true villains of the Cold War. And who can forget Rep. David Bonior and Rep. Jim McDermott labeling President Bush a liar from Baghdad, while declaring that the Iraqis should be taken at their word.

Some might attempt to debate the left's affection for butchers, but few could argue that the timing of Uday and Qusay's demise was not inconvenient for them. George W. Bush was seemingly on the ropes after weeks of unshakable attention to those incriminating "16 words" from the State of the Union address. They prove definitively to his opponents that Saddam possessed no banned weapons and never did, that the president is a liar, that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and that the American people and congressional leaders were "misled" into supporting it.

Critics were helped considerably by the administration's succumbing to trumped-up hysteria, and apologizing needlessly. Bush's statement about "British intelligence" learning of Saddam's effort to obtain uranium from Africa was true when he said it, and it's still true today. Based on confidential information, apart from apparently forged documents, the British government maintains, and Tony Blair and Jack Straw have stated repeatedly, that such an attempt did take place.

To discard claims regarding Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, one must doubt virtually everyone in Washington, now and over the past decade, every nation with a viable intelligence capability, the United Nations and countless organizations, analysts and Iraqi defectors.

To accept that the 16 words in the State of the Union were pivotal to Bush's effort to depose Saddam, one must accept that the White House didn't believe the conditions of the Gulf War ceasefire, sky-high poll numbers, unanimous passage of U.N. Resolution 1441, 16 other resolutions, congressional approval to wage the war on terror, and specific approval from Congress to move against Iraq were adequate. All were in the president's pocket before his January address.

There can be no question that the well-deserved deaths of the Hussein boys were politically inconvenient for Democrats, and for a media that has focused on the contrived intelligence controversy for weeks.

The man that started it all, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson, had just hours earlier appeared on national television to augment his charges against the president. Speaking to an eager Katie Couric, Wilson accused the administration of a personal offensive against him, and professional retaliation against his wife, a CIA employee. Wilson had no evidence other than his own suspicions, but no matter.

Ambassador Wilson was portrayed in the interview as nothing but a humble and impartial public servant seeking to expose evil. In truth, even before his July 6, New York Times op-ed, in which he accused the White House of distorting intelligence, he condemned the "imperial ambitions," and "historical madness" of the "neoconservatives" in the administration. In addition to publicly opposing the war, he objected to economic sanctions and to then ongoing measures to contain Saddam and protect threatened Iraqi ethnic groups. He is also currently acting as an advisor to Senate Democrats. But none of this has undermined his credibility, unlike Bill Clinton's accusers who were regularly dismissed for having made eye contact with suspected Republicans.

Talk about ingratitude, what is the left to make of Clinton's call-in appearance on Larry King? During the well-timed spontaneous call, Clinton offered forgiveness for Bush's "mistakes" in relaying prewar intelligence. To that point there was no indication that the deaths of the Hussein brothers would hinder the "Bush lied" crusade, and every indication that it would go on irrespective. But how could the attacks continue without defying the father and spiritual leader of the modern Democrat Party?

To some supporters of Bush, Clinton's conciliatory words were a welcome, albeit unexpected, kind gesture. Talk radio top dog, Rush Limbaugh concluded that it was classic Clinton C.Y.A to head off voluminous evidence that he used fear of Iraqi nukes to justify his own actions against Saddam. Considering that Bill has taken every opportunity to chide the current president from the moment he left Washington, Rush's take was infinitely more believable.

But since when has Bill Clinton had to worry about his hypocrisy or culpability? Certainly not when he was in office. After perhaps?

Can there be any serious doubt that the Clintons were peddling presidential pardons to high stakes supporters in the last days of Bill's administration? Was it proven in court? No, but proving reciprocity for bribery is nearly impossible. The brothers of both Bill and Hillary were clearly dealing White House "get out of jail, but not for free", cards, however. Or should we believe that the departing president suddenly felt sympathy for wealthy fugitives and convicted drug kingpins, whose associates only by coincidence were providing funds to Clinton interests? It's a preposterous stretch. Nevertheless, there has been more attention paid to the underage drinking of George W. Bush's daughters.

Bush received the brunt of condemnation in the Enron fiasco for granting the stricken company, apparently, nothing whatsoever. Yet the overnight stays by Ken Lay at the White House, the golf outings, trade junkets, overseas deals and hundreds of millions in federal loans provided during the Clinton administration were ignored, and remain all but unknown.

The pre-Iraq war intelligence hubbub has been boiling for weeks. But Clinton's use of the same intelligence to justify military strikes and warnings that "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons" are irrelevant.

There can be no question that Bill Clinton's blanket immunity would continue. So why would he come to Bush's rescue?

However baseless the charges are, it's clear that the pounding was politically damaging the president, at least in the short-term. And that is not only a problem for Bush, but also for the Clintons. Hillary's designs on the Oval Office are a mystery to no one. But the time is not yet right. A George W. Bush that is successfully damaged and politically vulnerable will create a legitimate shot for current Democrat candidates. And a Democrat victory in 2004 will effectively end Hillary's chance at the presidency. The more vulnerable Bush looks, the more likely it is that she will enter the fray, but jumping into the 2004 race is fraught with dangers for her as well.

Senator Clinton currently polls at the top of the Democrat heap, but her negatives are astronomical and the potential for a massive negative turnout is high. Running against a sitting president is always a risky proposition, and even more so in a time of war. Moreover, the Clintons are well aware that the public has had insufficient time to forget their Jerry Springer-type adventures in Washington. As such, the best opportunity for a second Clinton administration is for Bush to be re-elected, and a Hillary candidacy in 2008.

Though the left has sacrificed mightily to defend the Clintons, their devotion continuing to the present day, Bill's Larry King reprieve for Bush shows again that the Clintons are loyal only to themselves. Had it not been for mountains of Democrat political dollars going to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign, and Bill's presidential library fund and the critical diversion of media attention, the odds are that Al Gore would be president. But that would have made Bill just an ex-president and Gore the leader of the party.

There was no chance of Hillary taking the party nomination from an incumbent Gore in 2004, and by 2008 she would either be running against an incumbent Republican or trying to sell a Clinton legacy nearly a decade out of date and out of the party limelight.

These are not merely the notions of a conspiratorial conservative. Some notable Democrat Party operatives and media leftists are beginning to squawk about the Clinton's "sucking all the oxygen out of the room", keeping their names in the spotlight as party leaders, while current candidates wallow in near obscurity. With the scheduled release of Bill's book at the height of the primary season, such protests are likely to increase. But there's a Clinton dynasty to think about.

It's unfortunate that after all the left did to keep the Hussein regime in power, Uday and Qusay died at such a politically inconvenient time, with Bush in their crosshairs and all. But however well manufactured and successful the Iraq intelligence scandal, it just didn't fit into Bill and Hillary's plan.

Perhaps from now on liberals will be more cautious of whom they ally themselves with, overseas and within their own movement.

How can anyone not feel elated at the deaths of two mass murderers, rapists, sadistic torturers and tyrants? If the celebration of the deaths of these two brutal butchers makes anyone feel uneasy there is only one possible reason, you are spiritually aligned with them or their cause. It isn't about right/left politics anymore, it's pure spiritual warfare going on.

Perhaps from now on liberals will be more cautious of whom they ally themselves with, overseas and within their own movement.

Dream on. That's like saying "Perhaps my dog will choose not to eat that steak within his easy grasp because it might spoil his appetite for his Dog Chow in 6 hours...."

Perhaps from now on liberals will be more cautious of whom they ally themselves with, overseas and within their own movement.

Dream on. That's like saying "Perhaps my dog will choose not to eat that steak within his easy grasp because it might spoil his appetite for his Dog Chow in 6 hours...."

The question is, what will be the distribution of delegates at next year's convention? Will someone pull away from the pack and become the standard-bearer, or will the convention be brokered? It might seem that the Clinton system calls for the latter--but what then would keep the convention from drafting Hillary?
Are we to believe that the delegates will come dedicated to "anyone but Hillary" next year, but in '08 will come in determined to nominate no one else? Are we to believe that they will accept the principle that they are assembled in '04 to nominate a sacrificial lamb? No, if the Clinton '08 scenario is to unfold it calls for a Dean blowout in the '04 primary followed by a Bush win in the general election.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.