Iraq War Supporters Denounce Democratic Critics of Bush

CNSNews.com ^ | 9/25/03 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - Facing mounting criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, supporters of the president hit back Wednesday, calling on congressional critics to state what they would have done differently after the 9/11 attacks.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) scolded Democrats, who he said "want to return to the weak and the indecisive foreign policy of their Cold War past.

"There was a time when Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt spoke with moral clarity about evil in the world and the responsibility of the United States to fight that evil with all the strength of a great and a mighty nation," DeLay told policy makers at the Heritage Foundation.

"Today, that kind of moral clarity might be voiced around the dinner table by millions of loyal Democrats, but it would be booed at their presidential debates," DeLay said.

Rather than confronting terrorism, leading Democrats have walked away from the legacy of FDR and JFK, a legacy that millions of Democrat voters support, DeLay said.

"John Kerry says, 'We really need a regime change in Washington.' Bob Graham suggests that the president's actions in Iraq might warrant impeachment proceedings," Delay said.

"Nancy Pelosi says of the Iraqi liberation, 'We could have brought down that statue for a lot less.'

"Howard Dean questions whether the liberated Iraqi people are really better off than under Saddam Hussein's boot heel," DeLay said.

And in an apparent reference to Wesley Clark, DeLay continued: "Last week, the very man that was supposed to bring foreign policy gravitas to the Democrat primary revealed he has absolutely no idea what he believes about the most important foreign policy issue of this generation.

"And most recently, Ted Kennedy unleashed the most mean-spirited and irresponsible hate speech yet, saying that the war in Iraq was a fraud cooked up in Texas for the political benefit of the president's allies," DeLay said.

Kerry, Graham, Dean and Clark are among 10 contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This "leftward lurch" hasn't been lost on rank-and-file Democrats, said DeLay, who called on Congress to approve Bush's request for an additional $87 billion in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many Democratic members of Congress and rank-and-file Democrats are concerned about the "extremism" of the Democratic leadership, DeLay said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said that by leading an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein, President Bush did what the United Nations couldn't do - enforce the 17 U.N. resolutions that Hussein ignored.

"I call on the president's critics to say what they would have done differently," Hastert said in a statement. "Would they have left Saddam Hussein to his own devices? Would they have allowed the Taliban to continue its brutal rule?

"Time and time again, President Bush has shown effective leadership in battling the great threats that confront the international community," Hastert said.

Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, said recent statements by Bush's Democratic critics suggest they never recovered from the "Vietnam syndrome."

"They would not have done what George Bush has done. They would not have taken the war straight to the terrorists and to the regimes that sponsor them. They would not have completely destroyed those regimes. They wouldn't have done it; it's not part of their make-up to do that. Theirs is half-measures and conciliation," Waller said.

Bush's critics were divided into two camps - those who criticized the Iraq war from the beginning, such as Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), and those who supported the president but are changing their stance now that the going is getting tough, such as John Kerry, Waller said.

The former group has more credibility in the Iraq debate today than the latter, Waller said.

"If the United States had acted against al Qaeda when the World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993, we never would have had a 9/11. No state would have wanted to sponsor such terrorists because they would have known that that would have been the end of them.

"Second, those terrorists would not exist because we would have wiped them out and given an example that this is what happens when you mess with America," Waller said.

Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies with the Cato Institute and a critic of the Iraq invasion, said, however, the military operation to remove Saddam Hussein was not germane to the war on terrorism.

"Those who said before the war that we should not be attacking Iraq because it is not germane to the war on terrorism, I think, were right, and that's what should have been done differently.

"The president has recently admitted that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or that there's no evidence that links the two of them, and in [Tuesday's] speech, he said no government should ignore the threat of terror because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare, and I would argue that that's exactly what attacking Iraq has allowed al Qaeda to do - regroup, recruit and prepare," Pena said.

Listen to audio for this story.

E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[shuckmaster]

I just got my power back on six days after Isabel & I'm astonished to read the news & see the only thing the Bush administration has on it's mind is extorting $87 billion out of the American ecomomy to rebuild Iraq.
I suppose if he wanted to use that $87 billion to rebuild America instead it would be called socialism & conservatives just wouldn't go for that would they?

[Timmy]

Fat, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Obviously, all the power to your unit ain't quite up and running, yet.

[capydick]

Why is Tom Delay only one of the few fighting back? It's one of the most aggravating things to see the RATS hammering our country and President and yet, there hasnt been an effective response. Hopefully, the President is giving the RATS the rope that he will hang them with.

[capydick]

I'd rather see a Democratic Iraq and peace in the Middle East than receive free health care and free prescriptions for the rest of my life. Neither make this country safe from those who wish to see that I dont have grand children. Whether you like it or not, America is still the beacon of hope for those who live under the boot heel of a tyrant. Get on board son, there's plenty of room on the love America train.

[NeonKnight]

I suppose if he wanted to use that $87 billion to rebuild America instead it would be called socialism & conservatives just wouldn't go for that would they?

Not if the $87B's that was being used to rebuild America was in the form of a tax cut.

[NeonKnight]

I should have said unless the $87B's was in the form of a tax cut.

[Ronin]

We all know what Bubba would have done. After 9/11 he would have made lots of tearful speeches... he would have hugged a few widows (if they were young and shapely) he would have bitten his lip and told America he felt our pain...

And, if there was any news he wanted to bump off the front page, he might have even found an asprin factory or a "used camel" dealership to fling some million dollar cruise missiles at.

Other than that... not much.

[trebb]

I suppose if he wanted to use that $87 billion to rebuild America instead it would be called socialism & conservatives just wouldn't go for that would they?

So, you'd rather live in fear of the next terrorist attack and have free ice cream on Thursdays?

[UncleDudley]

It's more than demokrats who have a problem with this war with Iraq. Iraq's borders are more secure than the USA borders, for one.

[MEG33]

You don't post enough for me to figure out where you're coming from.

[UncleDudley]

It's more than demokrats who have a problem with this war with Iraq. Iraq's borders are more secure than the USA borders, for one.

[UncleDudley]

It's more than demokrats who have a problem with this war with Iraq. Iraq's borders are more secure than the USA borders, for one.

[Rocko]

If the Democrats who are standing in the way of the War on Terror had their way we'd need a lot more health care and prescriptions just to deal with the aftermath of the next terrorist attack.

[autoresponder]

Haiti

What are the Clinton's exit plans for Haiti?

[capydick]

Right. The French and Islam wing of the Democratic party would have us become the surrender monkey's that France is so as to ensure our destruction. And, all the talking heads have the temerity to ask Ann Coulter how she could level the charge that most all RAT leaders are treasonous. It's on display for us right now, for those who wish to see.

[MEG33]

There are some posters on this board that bring up the borders no matter what the subject.

[samtheman]

The President's grasp of the global nature of the war on terror, and the strategic part our presence in Iraq now plays in that global war reveals his political genius.

George W Bush is a giant of a president. As was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan won the cold war. Bush has put us on the only possible path for winning the war on terror.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

A few Republicans getting their two cents in. Thanks, CNS News! It isn't for want of trying. It's for want of mainstream press that isn't a DNC PR machine.

"I call on the president's critics to say what they would have done differently," Hastert said in a statement. "Would they have left Saddam Hussein to his own devices? Would they have allowed the Taliban to continue its brutal rule?

"Time and time again, President Bush has shown effective leadership in battling the great threats that confront the international community," Hastert said.

Ping for Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert. Perhaps they can give lessons to Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee.

 Thanks, Tonkin!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Welcome back to the First World!

I suppose if he wanted to use that $87 billion to rebuild America instead it would be called socialism & conservatives just wouldn't go for that would they?

The short answer to your question is, "Yes."

OTOH the military is inherently socialistic in a real sense; everyone in it is supposed to subsume themselves in the mission (ultimately, care for US citizens) and in the care for everyone else in the military. War is ill for the people but health for the state, or some such.

The answer is of course to get Iraq normal ASAP and let them do--and pay for--their own development. ASAP, however, is an indefinite term. And so is "normal." We are attempting to redefine "normal" for Iraq, and that's the rub.

If SNAFU is too FU, the whole Iraq project will not only do no good at great expense and painful cost--it will be counterproductive. As in, defeat for Bush et al in '04. So the Administration's philosophy can only be, "In for a dime, in for a dollar."

In the meanwhile the sovereign remedy, IMHO, for internal US complaints would be to build a database of Iraqi voters and give them all Iraqi Social Security cards. Then run a secret-ballot election in which they decide between

Line A - "shall the US continue to build a stable secular rule of law in which your ISS card is funded by Iraq's petrodollars" or

Line B - "Shall the Baath Party be allowed to reinstitute the torture chambers and killing fields, and to spend Iraq's petrodollars on palaces for Saddam and for torturers/murderers"?

If Line B is at all competitve, we know it's a lost cause and we cut our losses. In real life we have the example of the Sandanistas, who allowed that sort of election in Nicaragua--and got 20% of the vote.