Posted on 07/25/2003 5:07:10 AM PDT by SJackson
Amid the general media and Democratic frenzy over Niger yellowcake, it is Bill Clinton who injected a note of sanity. "What happened often happens," Clinton told Larry King. "There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . . British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, 'Well, we probably shouldn't have said that.' " Big deal. End of story. End of scandal.
The fact that the Democrats and the media can't seem to let go of it, however, is testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject. From what? From the moral and strategic realities of Iraq. The moral reality finally burst through the yellowcake fog with the death of the Hussein brothers, psychopathic torturers who would be running Iraq if not for the policy enunciated by President Bush in that very same State of the Union address.
That moral reality is a little hard for the left to explain, considering the fact that it parades as the guardian of human rights and all-around general decency, and rallied millions to prevent the policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror.
Then there are the strategic realities. Consider what has happened in the Near East since Sept. 11, 2001:
(1) In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government has been installed.
(2) In Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime has been overthrown, the dynasty has been destroyed and the possibility for a civilized form of governance exists for the first time in 30 years.
(3) In Iran, with dictatorships toppled to the east (Afghanistan) and the west (Iraq), popular resistance to the dictatorship of the mullahs has intensified.
(4) In Pakistan, once the sponsor and chief supporter of the Taliban, the government radically reversed course and became a leading American ally in the war on terror.
(5) In Saudi Arabia, where the presence of U.S. troops near the holy cities of Mecca and Medina deeply inflamed relations with many Muslims, the American military is leaving -- not in retreat or with apology but because it is no longer needed to protect Saudi Arabia from Hussein.
(6) Yemen, totally unhelpful to the United States after the attack on the USS Cole, has started cooperating in the war on terror.
(7) In the small, stable Gulf states, new alliances with the United States have been established.
(8) Kuwait's future is secure, the threat from Saddam Hussein having been eliminated.
(9) Jordan is secure, no longer having Iraq's tank armies and radical nationalist influence at its back.
(10) Syria has gone quiet, closing terrorist offices in Damascus and playing down its traditional anti-Americanism.
(11) Lebanon's southern frontier is quiet for the first time in years, as Hezbollah, reading the new strategic situation, has stopped cross-border attacks into Israel.
(12) Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have been restarted, a truce has been declared and a fledgling Palestinian leadership has been established that might actually be prepared to make a real peace with Israel.
That's every country from the Khyber Pass to the Mediterranean Sea. Everywhere you look, the forces of moderation have been strengthened. This is a huge strategic advance not just for the region but for the world, because this region in its decades-long stagnation has incubated the world's most virulent anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic and anti-modernist fanaticism.
This is not to say that the Near East has been forever transformed. It is only to say that because of American resolution and action, there is a historic possibility for such a transformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
But it all hinges on success in Iraq. On America's not being driven out of Iraq the way it was driven out of Lebanon and Somalia -- which is what every terrorist and every terrorist state wants to see happen. And with everything at stake, what is the left doing? Everything it can to undermine the enterprise. By implying both that it was launched fraudulently (see yellowcake) and, alternately, that it has ensnared us in a hopeless quagmire.
Yes, the cost is great. The number of soldiers killed is relatively small, but every death is painful and every life uniquely valuable. But remember that just yesterday we lost 3,000 lives in one day. And if this region is not transformed, on some future day we will lose 300,000.
The lives of those as yet unknown innocents hinge now on success in Iraq. If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, enjoying, as it does today, the freest press and speech in the entire Arab world, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the whole region will fall back into chaos, and worse.
While I often prefer to avoid the words "Liberal" or "Democrat" and just call them what they are: "the Left", I have to say I would reverse that policy here.
What are the Democrats doing? What are the Liberals doing? Why, what they always do: engaging in treasonous behavior!
Limbaugh has talked about Clinton's efforts to sabotage the field this go around. If Hillary is truly keeping her eyes on 2008, the Clintons don't want a Democratic victory in 2004, that would close the door on 2008. When that hag starts to get really old, she's not going to get more electable.
The notion that scares me the most is that accelerating the tax cuts, combined with Greenspan's fervent pumping of the money supply, jiggles GDP growth sufficiently to take the steam out of Democratic arguments against the performance of the economy. Bush is re-elected, but short of a friggin' miracle the debt burdening the world's economy will have it's say eventually (we're only pushing it off by taking on more debt, but no one in their right mind thinks you can continue increasing the debt to income ratio past the 300% mark it's surpassed). If it happens in Bush's second term, it sets the stage nicely for Clinton in 2008. If the socialist take power on the wave of that, they might nationalize industry like FDR and plunge us into another decade long depression. God help us...
I think he said what he did because he knows the truth. hitlery! has said nothing about WMD's either. They both know.
And when the WMDs are found there's going to be a whole lot of dims that painted themselves into a corner. one of them won't be her heinous.
I don't think the Clintons, or anyone, is smart enough to precisely time the correction, but I do think they're trying to 'suck the oxygen out of the room' for this election cycle's batch of candidates. IF a Dem wins this cycle, it hurts Hillary's chances more than a Bush win. I think they're thinking about themselves, not the Dems. I don't know that rank and file Dems even think - they just feel.
This article splains it fairly well, I think.
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.