Small wonder the Democrats are furious. Remember Bush's 'I'm-A-Uniter, Not-A-Divider' campaign rhetoric? Well, the record shows just the opposite -- he's been everything but a uniter. Take al-Qaeda, for example. Bush's successful pursuit of the terror network has driven the terror network, too disrupted to strike U.S. soil again, to reach desperately for 'softer-targets,' i.e., the May 12 bombing in Riyadh and follow-up strikes against Muslim Morocco. But, with more Arabs than infidels killed in each strike, the campaign backfired -- turning Arabs against al-Qaeda, Wahabi against Wahabi. No more united Wahabi front against America. Wahabis are divided. 'Bush the divider not the uniter!' say Bush's terrorist critics.
The "Palestinian" situation is another example. Bush's 'Roadmap' peace plan rendered poor, little Arafat largely irrelevant, thrusting PM Abu Mazen to the fore, while isolating 'peace-loving' Hamas -- turning "Palestinian" against "Palestinian." No more united front against Israel. In short, "Palestinians" are divided. 'Bush the divider, not the uniter!' say Bush's Hamas critics.
On the home front, the same 'sinister' dynamic is at work. Evil Bush's aggressive pursuit of his agenda, deft use of the Bully-Pulpit, command of the stage and sustained popularity have left poor, little Democrats largely irrelevant, driving the militant group, unable to chink Bush's armor, to reach desperately for 'softer-targets,' i.e., each other! To date, every Democrat smear campaign against Bush -- BUSH KNEW! BUSH KNEW NOT! BUT SHOULD'A KNOWN! -- only backfired, turning Democrat against Democrat, Fedayeenie against Fedayeenie. 'Bush the divider, not the uniter!' say Bush's Democrat critics.
Now the whole Democrat Party -- from presidential candidates down to Scott Peterson's lawyer -- is caught up in a vicious cycle of "violence," metaphorically. It's Democrat versus Democrat, with no ceasefire in sight. Media efforts to broker a truce -- by focusing on "failure" to find WMD in Iraq -- have stalled or backfired, fueling the Iraq debate even further. The Hamas wing of the party, led by militant Howard Dean, defiant as ever, vows to crush the Abu Mazen wing, led by Joe Lieberman. Party militants view Lieberman with growing suspicion (likely a 'Zionist mole!'), and are not about to lay down their arms. Hating Israel (proxy for hating Jews) constitutes a major litmus test in today's diversity-loving Democrat Party, second only to hating Bush. Democrat factions targeting each other -- Karl Rove couldn't have scripted this better.
The Dean-Kerry clash, for example, threatens to escalate.
With "the latest poll in New Hampshire, the first primary state," showing Dean and Kerry "in a statistical tie" (CNN report, 6/17/03), "The former Vermont Governor...takes on his primary rivals...in the first campaign ad of the '04 race for the White House," (CNN Inside Politics, 6/16/03). In it, Dean complains that "Too many Democrats in Washington," a clear reference to some '04 rivals, "are afraid to stand up for what we believe in."
(Democrats in Washington hotly deny the claim, noting their post-war effort to clear Saddam of all banned weapons possession charges, accusing the "racist" White House of planting bloody gloves found at every intel service in the civilized world, wrongly incriminating the ousted dictator as armed and dangerous when he wasn't.)
"The Dean campaign" began "running that ad [Tuesday] on broadcast stations throughout the kickoff caucus state of Iowa," added CNN.
Graham and Dean are trapped in a cycle of violence, er, cycle of sparring as well.
"Speaking at a luncheon for New Hampshire business leaders Monday," reports CNN, Dean is quoted saying "'Bob Graham is a wonderful, decent human being, but at this time he's in single digits in all the states you can't be in single digits in. I have enormous respect for Bob Graham, but at this point he's not one of the top-tier candidates. I think that's widely recognized.'" The rocket-propelled grenade hit the Graham campaign hard, but the Graham campaign, smoldering even after Dean later apologized for hurting his feelings, fired back through spokesman Jamal Simmons:
"I'm not sure why Dr. Dean thinks it's in his interest to pick fights with other Democratic candidates, but he underestimates the former governor of the fourth largest state at his own peril. With all due respect, Bob Graham created twice as many jobs when he was governor of Florida than there are people in the state of Vermont."
The latest New Hampshire poll shows Graham riding a wave of new popularity in sky-high single digits (1%). No word yet on whether Graham will request a formal apology from the latest New Hampshire poll after hurting his feelings.
Dean and Edwards are also caught in a cycle of violence, sheesh! I mean, cycle of sparring. "Dean accused Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., of avoiding discussing his pro-war stance in a speech to [a] largely anti-war California Democratic convention," reports CBS News. Anti-war California Democrat conventions are hotbeds of pro-Saddam sentiment.
CBS News: "As it turned out, Edwards had, in fact, mentioned his support for the war in his speech, and was booed and jeered by the crowd" of Saddam loyalists and Fedayeenies. "Dean later sent Edwards a hand-written apology note" for hurting his feelings.
Meanwhile, another Vermont Democrat is stirring up trouble. Sen. Patrick Leahy, "Leader of the filibusters against two [Bush] nominees to the federal bench," (Washington Times, 6/17/03), last week fired off a letter to the President, warning the White House "'to avoid a divisive confirmation fight' by consulting with Democrats," specialists in divisive confirmation fights, "before picking a nominee if a Supreme Court seat opens up this month,'" the Times reports, quoting the June 11 letter.
"Mr. President, though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention over vacancies that may arise on the Court," wrote the Senator, known for controversy and contention stemming from vacancy between his ears, "contention is avoidable, and consensus should be our goal."
"I would hope," said Leahy, whose noble objective is polarizing the Senate and blocking nominees through filibusters eked out in narrow margins, "your objective will not be to send the Senate nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are eked out in narrow margins."
Translation: Psst! Yo, Bush? We obstructionist Senate Democrats shall pick the nominees, the White House SHALL advise and consent. Got that?
The founding fathers could not be reached for comment, though the Constitution oddly makes no mention of Leahy's unique, rather creative theory. The Constitution does, on the other hand, specify that Leahy is kinda full of it: The Senate shall advise and consent -- vote up or down -- on nominees to the bench, not the other way around.
Leahy says he's above it all. True, but it's a steep climb up that mountain of excrement where he sits. Besides, Senate Democrats have no plans on experimenting with democracy.
<hr noshade size="1" width = "16%">
Meanwhile, suspicions have been growing that Democrats, in their pre-war quest to bolster their stance against a U.S.-led invasion, hyped or inflated the threat of Quagmire in Iraq.
Democrats insist that dire, pre-war information pointed towards Quagmire hopelessly bogging down any use of force to oust Saddam, adding that they remain confident that Quagmire will eventually be found in Iraq, though they don't know how long Big Media will take to find it.
No Quagmire has been uncovered in Iraq despite media-led search crews scouring the country for weeks, amid growing questions that Democrats, via New York Times "reports"/editorials, shaded or manipulated the threat of Quagmire. Democrats warned direly that war with Iraq would unleash stockpiles of Quagmire, killing tens of thousands of U.S. troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, while plumes of blinding smoke rising from hundreds of oil fires plague the environment for years to come. Leading Quagmirists also saw a potentially wider war, with Israel forced to retaliate for repeated Quagmire missile strikes against Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. In northern Iraq, civil war between Kurdish and Turkish forces, a key test of Quagmire theory, also failed to materialize, as did massive Iraqi refugee flows and terror strikes against U.S. targets.
Democrats worry that future Quagmire predictions will lack credibility and are scrambling to save face after opposing a war which brought swift victory for U.S.-led forces. Democrats demand full-scale Congressional hearings probing the whereabouts of Quagmire. As doubts continue to grow, questions focus on whether Saddam may have hid or destroyed Quagmire during the 12-year U.S. rush to war.
No hard evidence of Quagmire has been found.
Sen. Carl Levin, Chief Quagmire inspector, accuses the White House of making Saddam look armed and dangerous, when Saddam was neither armed nor dangerous. "Was the intelligence book cooked?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York. "Did somebody slant the truth? Did somebody lie to the President? Did the President not tell the truth to the American people?"
Did Bush give psycho dictator Saddam a fair shake? What about the presumption of innocence? Was the case against Saddam proven beyond reasonable doubt? What about innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that the American way? Democrats want answers now!
But President Bush came out swinging this week, noting that "there's a lot of revisionist history going on." But with Saddam gone, "one thing is certain. He is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free."
Speaking at a community college Tuesday while pushing his domestic agenda, Bush reminded his critics that the U.S. "made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. And we asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him."
Democrats, who say they don't defend Saddam, defend Saddam against charges he failed to disarm, asserting that Saddam not only disarmed, he did so voluntarily after throwing U.N. weapons inspectors out in '98. Problem is, say Democrats, the Iraqi leader innocently forgot to document Iraq's voluntary disarmament program and forgot to tell the U.N. and forgot to cooperate with returning U.N. inspectors and forgot that cooperating with returning U.N. inspectors meant ending U.N. sanctions.
"The world is still a dangerous place, but America will rise to the challenge," said Bush. "The security of our country is of paramount importance. And no matter how long it takes, no matter what the sacrifices may be, that the United States will fight for freedom and will defend the security of our people. It is a charge that we have been given, and it is a charge that we will keep."
Nuff said.
Anyway, that's
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2003
