Democrats' stands show a clear choice

Denver Post ^ | 9-24-2003 | Al Knight, Denver Post Columnist

[BigWaveBetty]

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.

The available evidence tends to support the former possibility.

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.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Kennedy is in an alcoholic stupor. He needs to go into rehab. Byrd is in full blown dementia. Perhaps they both suffer from both ailments. But regardless, they are both mentally and physically ill.

[BigWaveBetty]

Thanks for posting, I hadn't seen that and will now spread it around."The real war isn't in Iraq," one Democratic consultant said. "It's right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004."

And the Iraqis are worried spitless that we'll elect a person who won't fulfill our commitment. We need to spread that message as well.

[BigWaveBetty]

at this time in our history, the big divide, politically, is between those who GET IT, and those who DON'T, vis-a-vis the War on Terror.

Some who don't get it really just want their power back. I refer to senators and congressmen. For instance, Diane Finestien at the latest hearing with Rumsfeld whined that, (paraphrasing) it seems like you all don't even hear our complaints, we tell you all what we think and we're ignored, we're just told we're supposed to jump and the only question we're allowed to ask is how high.

Maybe I should email this complaint hotline number to Diane...... 1-800- WAH-WAH-WAH.

Secty. Rumsfeld gets and A+ today for not laughing in her face. Just as he reiterated in his answer, he attends numerous hearings, meetings and faxes out tons of information to all of congress. In addition, he reminded her that he takes their questions and concerns back to his staff and others and gets the answers and/or solves the problems they have.

This too will not be satisfactory and there will be much more whining.

[BigWaveBetty]

Thank you so much for all your hard work on the good news from Iraq!

[BigWaveBetty]

Their careers are both nearly finished from a chronological standpoint. They have little or nothing to lose (Kennedy presumably a bit more than Byrd) by this outrageous behavior.

I hadn't though of that but you're right of course. It makes those two all the more dangerous.

[My2Cents]

Power is a narcotic (only remedied by a humble attitude of public service while in office), and the Democrats are suffering from severe withdrawal. The Dems remind me of a heroin addict with the shakes who will do and say absolutely anything to get another fix. They've lost all sense of propriety and dignity. They don't even put up a civil front any more. They're just a sick, pathetic group of junkies who would sell their grandmothers' jewelry for another fix. They are self-absorbed, and self-destructive. And I don't think the majority of Americans are so codependent that they'll give these degenerates access to the White House in the near future.

[My2Cents]

These are the leaders of the Democrat Party -- an alcoholic, and a guy in full-blown dementia. They're the only ones crazy enough to think their rantings make sense.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The only thing that would be MORE bizarre than these two, is if Americans fail to re-elect this President based on the rantings of idiots like them.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a new rendition of the "Wizard of Oz". Only there are too many key players to name who is playing which role (See List of DEMS running for PRES). Someone pinch me and wake me up! What a nightmare...

If it wasn't all so serious, with our troops "LIVING" the reality of it all, it would be laughable.

But we (meaning all Americans) can't sit back eating popcorn on our soft couches and accept this kind of dangerous rhetoric spewing out of their toilet mouths from their septic tank brains, because it IS dangerous to our troops.

I don't know if you had a chance to read this article yet. But boy.. was it ever good.

Here is the link:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0903/22international.html?urac=n&urvf=10642377116960.8839345774896111

Take care FRiend.

[My2Cents]

Daily I become more and more convinced that the War on Terror, and the political battle at home, are fronts in a huge spiritual war. I believe that George W. Bush was elected in 2000 through the prayers of faithful people who heard the call to pray for our nation. His reelection will only be achieved through similar prayer. That's my take.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Believe me,.. we feel the same way.

I hope you had a chance to read that link. You won't be sorry. Believe it or not.. it was an article from a Democratic Congressman who went to Iraq. I just sent it out to about 100 e-mails.

He blames the media for troops deaths, Iraqi's getting discouraged, and for not getting all the good things our troops are doing out to the public. You really ought to read it. Trust me friend.. you won't be sorry!!

[My2Cents]

I went back and read the link. Excellent. Refreshing to find a Democrat who is willing speak the truth, rather than partisan spin. I sent it to my email contacts as well.

[MEGoody]

"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."

LOL When I heard Kennedy was demanding this, I couldn't help but think he had totally lost it. Had he no idea where the President had just been???

Kennedy was apparently on yet another of his drinking binges and was incoherent.

[MEGoody]

"Power is a narcotic (only remedied by a humble attitude of public service while in office), and the Democrats are suffering from severe withdrawal. The Dems remind me of a heroin addict with the shakes who will do and say absolutely anything to get another fix."

You know, I've been wondering why they have been acting so nutty. (It seemed just too good to be true!) Your comment explains it all.

[Rummyfan]

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

I vote for deluded! God help us that men such as these - 'leaders' - are in the Senate. When will the people in Massachusetts and West Virginia throw these two out?

[StriperSniper]

What I saw of Leavitt's confirmation hearing for EPA chief was as much a joke as the Bremer grillings/railing at the administration. Exact same MO.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I just happened across that article today. I have to say.. he is right. We have felt that way for a long time.

I think the media does discourage Iraqi's, they do embolden our enemies, (both foriegn and domestic) and it appears from some polls, the media is even discouraging our own fellow Americans. But more important, because they embolden our enemies.. they are getting our troops killed.

It honestly makes us sick.

Prayers that Americans will wake up from the collective sleep they are in. I wish they would DEMAND more reporting from the media!! For the sake of our brave troops!

[My2Cents]

But more important, because they embolden our enemies.. they are getting our troops killed.

This used to be called "treason."

[PhilDragoo]

When is the president going to ask the UN to participate in Iraq?
Psst, Senator Chappaquiddick, he just did.

I demand Paul Bremer be brought to Washington!
Psst, Senator KKK, he's sitting in the room now.

[windchime]

"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."


Joe Biden was doing Byrd-like yammering about Bremer not being available the next day on one of the shows last night. I guess staying and continuing to ask Ambassador Bremer questions would have interfered with TV appearances he had scheduled to criticize President Bush.