Democratic/Liberal Bluster Bolstered Saddam's Confidence & Assured War

What is the definition of Irony? How about this; Democrats in the Senate vote in a nearly united fashion to give President Bush the authorization to go to war against Iraq, then, soon after, begin a litany of anti-war rhetoric.

Okay, that sounds more like contradiction than irony, a norm for Dems, but I’m not quite finished yet. What if that anti-war rhetoric bolstered Saddam Hussein’s courage to stand up against President Bush, thus assuring the inevitability of war? Would you consider that Ironic? Even better is when, after stabbing the President in the back, politically speaking, the Minority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, comes forward to state that he is ‘’saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war.’’

I think we’ve hit a gold mine of irony here, if you ask me, but we’re not done yet. Months later, Dick Gephardt, the former Majority Leader of the House (who was demoted by the American people in 1994 to Minority Leader), then “borrows” Daschle’s line in desperation to try and reverse a downward trend in the polls as he attempts to win the Democratic primary by calling the President “a miserable failure.” But, lets keep mining, there’s even more gold in them thar hills.

After calling the President “a miserable failure” in two seperate debates with loud and uproarious applause from the angry, ugly left, he decides that it would be a grand idea to create a new web site, “amiserablefailure.com,” to further pander to the angry, ugly left. The mother lode to all of this shameful anti-Bush rhetoric is, of course, the fact that most Democrats fully understand that their anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric has made the President’s job far more difficult and has likely cost the lives of American soldiers and civilians.

Even after the tragic events of 9/11, when Democrats lined up behind the President to support him as we prepared for the coming war on Terrorism, Democrats were just biding their time. They were, of course, waiting until we had reached a minimum safe distance from 9/11 before going back to old habits and launching relentless attacks against the President.

When it was time to act in Afghanistan, Democrats began their first major shift away from support of the President. While the rhetoric was still toned down at the time, many of them voiced their “concerns” over the way the campaign was being run in that country, until, of course, the Taliban completely collapsed and Al Qaeda was running for its life.

Iraq, however, became the primary vehicle for Democrats as they sought to hinder the President’s plans in the war on terror. It was here that the Neville Chamberlain liberals began to launch their anti-war rallies to support Saddam Hussein and to denounce “imperialist aggression” on the part of the United States. President Bush was demonized while a murderous dictator, one of the worst in modern times, was painted as the victim of our aggression. No wonder Hussein continued to openly defy UN sanctions and US warnings!

But, when it came to Democratic support for the war, they still voted nearly unanimously to support the war resolution. Why would these “principled” anti-war proponents do such a thing? Well, there was still a itsy-bitsy problem for the Dems; most Americans supported the idea of pushing Saddam Hussein out of power.

The fact is, any American who possesses the attribute knows as “common sense,” not to be confused with “the Artist formerly known as Prince,” knew that in the post-9/11 world, we could no longer afford to let this madman stay in power. So, American support for the President led to yet another weak-kneed capitulation on the part of Dems, who really do not want to the President to succeed in the war on terror because they want him out of office next year. The solution? Why, vote for the resolution, of course, then go right back to the process of undermining the President’s efforts.

It was all of this on the part of Dems (the anti-war speeches, the “unnamed source” comments from Congress, the support for rallies against a war that had not even taken place, and more) that gave Hussein the confidence he needed to stay in place and hope that President Bush would bow to world pressure against the war. With a divided UN Security Council, tens of millions marching across the globe, and strong political opposition within Bush’s own government, how could Hussein not been encouraged?

Fortunately for us, George W. Bush is a man of principle first, and a politician second. This is exactly why Americans are loathe to vote career politicians from Washington, D.C. into the highest elected office in the nation. They do enough damage just in the lower houses... Why give them the opportunity to do more damage than what is offered at the congressional level?

Will all the Democrat’s bluster stop when Saddam Hussein is hauled out of Iraq, dead or alive, by American forces? Not a chance! It won’t stop then, it won’t stop after Iraq becomes a peaceful and democratic nation, it won’t stop after the next election, and, at this rate, it might not even stop after the goes cold in the sky five billions years from now. The Angry, Ugly Left has succeeded in turning the Democratic party into a pitiful shell of its former self. Too bad for them.

Did not the LYING by CNN,etc. AND the fawning by US media also help?

Dan Rather [on the frequency of murder and terror]: "Mr. President, if only you knew how
much I and others at CBS suport you rather than our unelected Bush"

Butcher-Terrorist Saddam: "Mr, Rather, it is absolutely remarkable that you media girly men
will repeatedly betray the USA, your President, and even the American people during war
for so little. We usually must gang rape a man's children and his wife, then burn and mutilate them
and then electrify his testicles and even cut off a few fingers before
he betrays his people. We are very lucky to have you, Dan."

Excellent piece - another slant on the fact that the rats put their agenda ahead of the national interest (and the lives of our military).

Couple this with all the failings of i42 to address the issue (which inaction encouraged the terrorist element) when he could have, and we have an "irony mountain."

The same thing is happening now.

Ted Kennedy cares nothing for America, he only hates.

The current crop of America haters have sided with our enemies and they should be removed from office.

The entire Democrat hiarchy are traitors and they all should join the other terrorists at Gitmo!!

The name of the game is to throw as many impediments in the path of the President as the Democrats can scrape up or dream up. It matters not whether what they charge has any basis in fact, the seriousness of the charge is what matters in their minds.

The fact is, this President has succeeded thus far not because of the aid and assistance he has gotten from the "loyal (?) opposition" but in spite of it. There are two different pictures of America out there, and for some 30% or so, the one vision shall never be acceptable. The worst thing for these people would be to succeed in winning power. They would at first think this was no bad thing, but as the realities of carrying out the duties of office sink in, they rapid abdictate the responsibilities, and insist only on enjoyment of the perks. Finally the affairs of state are in such a hash, they are voted out office, and the adults have to straighten up the room and get the lights back on. The chorus goes up, "Don't mess with my stuff!" In a mistaken idea that the eternal adolescents have some sort of moral standing, the "stuff" is largely undisturbed, though most of it is simply expensive junk that should be swept out with the rest of the trash.

They were, of course, waiting until we had reached a minimum safe distance from 9/11 before going back to old habits and launching relentless attacks against the President.

What safe distance?

Even today, the fact that in order to attack Bush they have to attack past and present policies, policies which are designed to protect us from terrorists, makes us less safe.

Mission resolve is a critical and very fragile part of any military venture, and our soldiers in Iraq are made less safe by the fact that less-resolved-to-the-mission comrades might be the ones protecting your backside. Their resolve eroded of course, by the constant questioning by the left of their commander in chief.

Then there's the fact that terrorists all over the world, and the opposition within Iraq are equally emboldened by the same relentless attack on Bush from within our country.

And they bristle when we call them un-patriotic!

Oh, the far left and those sympathetic to their point of view are patriotic all right. It is just to some mythical land that most Americans would not recognize, and certainly would not want to take up residence.

These Peter Pans flit off into the night, secure in the knowledge (entirely unfounded in fact) that nothing bad can ever happen to them, so long as they invoke the magic spells that keep Captain Hook at bay. But Captain Hook has no plans concerning the Peter Pans, except to keep them from taking over the ship. The ship is really directing its attack at the crocodiles, and the Peter Pans seem to believe that bad as the crocodiles may be, they are infinitely better than Captain Hook.

Question: If Peter Pan does succeed in putting Captain Hook off the ship, will the crocodiles become friends with Peter Pan?

I'm enjoying the bumper stickers posted in reply to my article. For those who might assume that I'm condemning all bumper stickers, please understand that what I object to are the bumper sticker slogans that groups come up with to replace free thought.

For example, when pro-abortion groups shout out the line, "keep your laws off my body!" Or how about this one, "GOP = Get Old People." So, when you engage people in a debate, they shout these slogans like a mantra, doing their best to drown out any points you are trying to make so that they and others around them won't hear the facts.

I can't tell you how often I've said to people, "well, the government already has laws all over your body. You can't commit suicide, you can't sell your body on the street for money (prostitution), you can't walk up and punch another person, you can't swim on private beaches where you are not a resident..." etc.

People don't want to be bothered by the facts, instead, they would rather just chant their mantra and go on with their lives using the slogan, "ignorance is bliss."

Thanks.

David Flanagan

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.