Democrats' stands show a clear choice

Recent remarks by two senior members of the Democratic Party, Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, have, perhaps unwittingly, offered Americans a simple and important political choice.

They can believe these two aging members of the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party or they can continue to believe President Bush and key members of his administration.

It is time to take sides. Was the war in Iraq a colossal mistake made possible by the president's fraudulent representations, or was it a just war provoked by the behavior of a vicious dictator?

The two senior senators are not in doubt as to which it is, and because of their increasingly strident comments, it's time to pay attention.

These men are either deluded or possessed of a very uncommon wisdom. It can't be both.

Monday, Byrd turned in one of his more bizarre performances at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing that featured testimony by Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq. Bremer was present to answer questions about the administration's request for a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion to aid the war effort and the reconstruction of Iraq.

What did Byrd want to talk about? Not the war in Iraq, not the reconstruction of Iraq, not the future of Iraq. What he wanted to talk about was how he had been mistreated by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the Republican chairman of the committee.

Byrd wanted Stevens to summon Bremer back to Washington for a future hearing on the supplemental request, and, he insisted, any failure to grant that request constituted a failure to treat him with the respect he deserved.

Bremer, meanwhile, was sitting yards away, willing, as he put it, to stay as long as Byrd or anyone else wanted to stick around and ask questions. Offered this opportunity, Byrd instead launched into an incoherent recitation of why he had voted against the war resolution and why he felt so deeply that the U.S. Constitution was being violated by a president who had no right to declare war. When he was reminded that the U.S. Senate had voted 77 to 23 to authorize the use of the military in Iraq, he simply replied that it didn't matter. The war, he said, was a fiasco and nothing more than an attack on a "sovereign nation."

Kennedy's recent behavior is no less bizarre. Having accused the president of fraudulent, if not criminal, behavior, he has lately adopted the pose that he is simply a scholar demanding the administration adopt higher academic standards.

Yesterday morning, minutes after Bush had spoken to the United Nations General Assembly, Kennedy was demanding to know all sorts of things, including when Bush would seek help from the U.N. One could only suppose that Kennedy hadn't listened to the president's speech, which of course included a call to the U.N. to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. The central theme of Kennedy's remarks was that the Bush administration had dragged the nation into an unwanted war and has no sensible plan to produce peace in Iraq.

Although the presidential election is still more than a year away, it is not too early to draw some preliminary conclusions.

The first is that President Bush remains willing to bet his re-election on eventual success in Iraq. He is not trying to have it both ways. He is not claiming that he was a victim of bad advice or that unexpected events have overtaken him He knew what he was getting the nation into and he is dedicated to finishing the job.

Contrast that with the Democrats who are whining that while it is, of course, good that the dictator of Iraq is gone, the prospect of finishing the job in Iraq is simply too terrible, and, yes, too expensive to contemplate. They wish to have it both ways. They want to share the credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein but escape the aftermath of that event by pretending that all that needs to be done is to pay greater heed to the United Nations.

If that's the central choice in the 2004 election, the vote can't come soon enough.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Denver Post editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.

Notice the date of this article? Seems the dear liberals are doing as instructed. Almost exactly........Now that is sick!
help me spread this article..it is important that the folks know what the libs. are doing.

ELECTION 2004
Democrats to raise
doubts about America
Strategy memo calls for undermining public confidence in Bush
Posted: January 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Hoping for significant gains in the 2004 elections, Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President Bush by questioning his credibility while raising doubts about the U.S. at a time when American troops are deploying for war against Iraq, political website Capitol Hill Blue reports.

According to the report, a Democratic talking-points memo devised last year by senior party consultants and elected leaders outlines "a strategy to raise public doubts of the president's real intentions," including:

Claims that the war against Iraq is being fought over oil and for oil companies loyal to Bush and Republicans;

Claiming the administration "manufactured" evidence against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to convince Britain and other allies to join the war;

Suggestions that a wartime economy is the only way the White House can boost a sagging economic picture."It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values," the memo says, according to CHB, which obtained a copy. "To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war."

"The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media," one Democratic consultant said. "No Democratic member of Congress will question the president's patriotism openly, but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts."

CHB indicates that in the coming weeks Democratic lawmakers will question Bush's intentions regarding the looming Iraq war. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic Party "have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism," CHB reported.

Not all Democrats are taking part, the newssite reported.

"My boss doesn't want anything to do with it," one senior Senate aide said Monday. "You don't undermine this country to win elections."

But others are willing to try any tactic to put the White House on the defensive and regain Democratic control of Congress.

"The real war isn't in Iraq," one Democratic consultant said. "It's right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004."

Other points Democrats will try to make in the coming weeks include the alleged influence and control over Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the oil and defense industries, as well as other special interest groups; that the war on terrorism has failed thus far because al-Qaida founder and leader Osama bin Laden is reportedly still alive; that the U.S. is not prepared for another terror attack on its soil because the administration is preoccupied with Iraq; and that Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the Iraqi war.

"It's time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush's policies are to the future of America," says the talking points memo, according to CHB.

Unnamed Democratic sources named Democratic National Committee chief Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt as party leaders who developed the talking-points memo.

"This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched-earth campaign," one DNC staffer said. "Take no prisoners. That's how you win elections."

So far, at least, Democrats may have trouble getting traction with their strategy.

Bush unveiled yesterday a $674 billion, 10-year plan to cut dividend taxes while imploring Congress to make his $1.35 trillion tax cut plan passed in 2001 permanent.

"Americans are scheduled to receive tax cuts in 2004 and 2006 ... and the time to deliver tax rate reductions is now, when they can do the most good for American businesses," Bush said in a speech to the Economic Club in Chicago.

The president also called on Congress to accelerate the tax break for married couples, scheduled for 2009, and speed up the tax credit for families with children, who aren't scheduled to get the break until 2010.

"I am asking the United States to abolish the double taxation of dividends," Bush said. "By ending this investment penalty, we will strengthen investor confidence. By ending double taxation of dividends, we will increase the return on investing to draw more money into the markets, to provide capital to build factories, to buy equipment, hire more people."

On Monday, the U.S. dollar rose against the euro and Japanese yen on news of Bush's stimulus package. Wall Street also responded positively to Bush's plan.

And according to at least one new survey, released yesterday, nearly two-thirds of Americans say when the stock market goes up it benefits the economy and all Americans.

Among investors, the poll found, 77 percent said a healthy stock market benefits everyone.

Meanwhile, surveys continue to show strong support across the country for Bush regarding a possible war with Iraq.

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.