How worried are Democrats on the eve of possible war?by JohnHuang2
My, my -- what a difference a week makes.
NEWSWEEK's Howard Fineman early this month shocked the world with this mind-numbing revelation: President George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. Worse -- he prays. Even more scandalous: He not only reads the Bible, the hayseed believes what it says!
Bush, dad-gum-it, is too Christian to be President!
Not so fast, says Jimmy Carter, whose superbly successful presidency ended after only 1 term on several minor technicalities: Screwing up the economy, screwing up a rescue mission, screwing up the military, screwing up the Panama Canal, long gas lines, galloping Misery Index, inflation, unemployment...well, you know the litany of impressive achievements.
"Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy," wrote Carter Sunday in the New York Times, adding glumly that these "profound changes" are "reversing consistent bipartisan commitments...these commitments have been predicated on...basic religious principles..."
Then he adds this: "As a Christian and a president...I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war," and Bush's war on Saddam doesn't cut the mustard!
In other words, Bush, dad-gum-it, is too unChristian to be President! Nowhere near as Christian as Carter, says Carter.
The view that removing Saddam by force is a sin "is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders," the "Reverend" Jimmy asserts.
"Almost universal"?
Hmmm, and just who might the lone holdouts -- this coterie of warmongering reprobates -- be?
Carter breathlessly reveals: "The Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel."
In other words, 'blame it on the Jews!', says Christian Jimmy.
Why, them dirty "Zionist Hoodlums"! Jimmy, like most Lefties, strongly denies he's anti-Israel. It's Jews that he can't stand.
Meanwhile, as Carter was busy dispensing bedazzling wisdom at the Times, presidential wannabe Howard Dean appeared on Sunday's Meet The Press.
How worried are Democrats of a quick and decisive victory in Iraq? You only need look at poor Howie. He looked mighty worried Sunday.
Here's the deal: Democrats feel burned. Bamboozled. Duped.
They backed Bush's war to oust the Taliban.
Then Bush let them down -- hard. How? By ousting the Taliban. Not supposed to happen so quickly and, er, decisively.
'Who lost the Taliban?', anguished Democrats now wonder, their spirits crushed.
Man, they just don't make 'quagmires' like they used to anymore, eh? Where's a Vietnam when you need one?
So, it's not surprising that, on Iraq, the Democrat motto these days is, 'We Won't Be Fooled Again!'
Problem is, some of these Democrats running for president voted 'Yea' on the Iraq war resolution back in the Fall, and the Democrat base won't let them forget it.
Now most of them wish they could take their vote back.
'Why, how dare Bush so skillfully manipulate me into voting for war?!'
Iraq, in fact, has become something of a litmus test for Democrat primary constituents.
Supporting your country is a slippery slope, you see. Who knows -- today it's saying The Pledge, tomorrow it might be saluting the Flag, heck, before you know it, you might end up patriotic, though Kerry, Sharpton and the others are confident they won't fall prey to that.
But Democrat voters aren't buying.
Dick Gephardt believed he had come "for a thoughtful Sunday morning living room conversation with Iowa Democrats about issues of his emerging presidential campaign," reports Adam Nagourney in the Sunday New York Times. Gephardt wanted to delve into issues like "education, health care and pensions."
"But," Nagourney continues, "for 25 minutes, Mr. Gephardt was badgered about his support for President Bush's Iraq policy in a tense session that finally ended when the local Democratic chairman said Mr. Gephardt was running behind schedule. In an instant, Gephardt was out of the room headed to his next stop."
For Sen. John F. Kerry, it was much the same.
He went "to Iowa on Saturday to give a speech in Des Moines about women's issues," writes Nagourney. "But he arrived to the shouts of antiwar demonstrators, and a meeting with local Democrats turned into an anguished discussion about what was taking place in Washington and Iraq and Mr. Kerry's support for the Iraq resolution passed by Congress last October."
Nagourney reports that "even Howard Dean" -- the closest thing to Tariq Aziz among the Democrat hopefuls -- "expressed frustration at what he encountered as he tried to talk about farm prices on Friday."
"I had a press conference and it was all about the war," Dean is quoted as saying, adding "Finally, I said, 'Would anybody like to talk about the enormous jump in the unemployment rate that was announced in the morning papers?'"
So there was Howard Dean on Meet The Press Sunday.
He blasted possible war with Iraq as "unilateral," as he did in a speech at the DNC winter meeting two weeks ago.
Host Tim Russert promptly corrected him, noting 20-plus countries are backing the U.S.-led effort.
Well, okay, maybe it's not 'Unilateral,' he concedes, then blames a newspaper columnist for the gaffe.
Tom Friedman called it 'Unilateral,' Tim, in a column I read this morning, you see. So, that's why I mis-spoke two weeks ago. (Tom Friedman made me do it even before he wrote it!).
So, what would Dean do about Saddam? The former Vermont Governor left no ambiguity.
No country, he said, should base its defense on U.N. permission, so waging war on grounds of self-defense is okay, unless, of course, the U.N. says 'No', in which case it's not okay. So Bush, back off, cowboy!
Dean condemned pre-emptive action as reckless, praised pre-emptive action as prudent (Israel bombing Iraq nuclear reactor circa '80), says he's not sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction; okay, maybe he does, but Saddam would never use 'em, not with Hans Blix writing those really, really tough 'attaboy, Saddam!' "reports" in New York.
Moreover, Dean doesn't consider Iraq to be "an imminent threat" against the U.S. On this score, Dean has a point: We all know a key goal of terrorists a la Saddam is to minimize civilian casualties, so expect Iraqi pilots to blanket New York and Chicago with leaflets warning of "imminent attack" before the suit-case nukes go off. (/sarcasm)
Dean, to be fair, strongly denies he's a pacifist. He just can't support any use of force -- especially if the military is involved. Bombs? Guns? Planes? Tanks? No way, someone could get hurt.
'So what does the war mean for Democrats in general?', pundits are asking. Bear in mind this war involves a country liberals truly love: Iraq. So, let's look at the war from the Democrats' perspective -- as Democrats see it.
Imagine you're some Democrat Caucus-goer in Iowa. Here's how you think: If things turn for the worse -- that is, if Saddam falls quickly -- we Democrats are screwed. If the war goes 'well' -- lots of U.S. casualties, planeloads of body-bags, quagmire in Baghdad, etc -- we Democrats have a shot at the White House next election. If the war goes 'badly' -- U.S. troops hailed as liberators, Saddam swiftly defeated, dancing and singing in the streets of Baghdad, victory rallies in New York, Chicago and L.A., etc. -- we Democrats will have an awful lot of 'splaining to do.
But will victory in Baghdad mean "antiwar" candidates a la Dean disappear?
Fat chance.
The base will still smolder at the Kerrys and Liebermans and Gephardts for their votes on Iraq. They'll be out for revenge in the primaries, for hell hath no fury like a Democrat constituency voter snubbed on Iraq.
Meanwhile, a new Zogby poll shows waning public support for military action, slipping from a late-January peak of 47%, down to a measly 57% support currently. A powerful -- growing! Overwhelming! -- 40% oppose military action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Al-Qaeda operatives are planning to strike at the U.S. and allied forces taking part in a war in Iraq," reports John Lumpkin of the Associated Press Sunday, citing "information acquired by American intelligence agencies, counterterrorism officials."
"The operatives," Lumpkin adds, "are subordinates of Abu Musab Zarqawi, whom CIA officials describe as a senior associate of Osama bin Laden. Some are in Baghdad; others are elsewhere in Iraq, the counterterrorism officials said..."
What a load of malarkey.
"Senior associates of Osama" in Baghdad? Al-Qaeda coordinating activities with PRESIDENT SADDAM? Zarqawi in cahoots with Saddam?
You don't need $40 billion spooks to tell you this scenario is balderdash.
First of all, no less a noted authority than Dan Rather says this theory is bunk. There's no link between Saddam and Osama, Rather insists. How does Rather know? Why, Saddam told him so himself.
Besides, would a well-respected member of the international community like Saddam, whose distinguished career includes gassing tens of thousands of people, risk sullying his human rights reputation by doing business with scummy al-Qaeda? C'mon, let's get real here!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further evidence that Bush is, as Democrats charge, 'going-it-alone' on Iraq, emerged over the weekend, with Albania announcing "it would send troops to join any U.S.-led attack on Iraq," Reuters reports. The offer includes the use of "Albanian territory and airspace" by U.S. forces in the event of possible war.
An even more damning piece of evidence that America has no friends nor allies in this war: An Associated Press story by John F. Burns, entitled, Jordan's King, in Gamble, Lends Hand to the U.S.
"The King has quietly accented to stationing American and British Special Forces in Jordan's eastern desert," Mr. Burns reports.
"In addition," he writes, "Abdullah has welcomed hundreds of American troops staffing three Patriot missile batteries that will seek to shoot down any Iraqi missiles launched against Jordan -- or, more likely, Israel."
If Bush's 'going-it-alone-ism' gets any more 'going-it-alone,' France and Russia may be the ones left out of Bush's 'Coalition of Willing'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war," Rep. Jim Moran told a group of "antiwar" activists in Reston, VA., "we would not be doing this."
It's all Barbara Streisand's fault, I tell ya! Um, oops, she opposes the war. Oh, I know -- it's all Ruth Messinger's fault! Nope -- she leads the "peace" movement in New York. Okay, it's Diane Feinstein's fault! What? Against the war, too? Well, what about Barbara Boxer? Another Left-wing peacenik?!
The remarks touched off a firestorm, with several Jewish groups calling on Moran to resign.
House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi said "Moran's comments were...inappropriate" in the party of Al Sharpton, Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings.
Sen. Tom Daschle said they were "out of order and totally not in keeping with" the party of Jesse Jackson.
Moran, feeling the heat, now says he really, really didn't mean it. And that he's really, really sorry. "I made some insensitive remarks that I deeply regret," he said in a statement.
Frankly, I don't get it. Here you've got a Democrat from the Heinrich Himmler wing of the party, sticking up for Der Fuehrer Saddam, who hates Jews, invades neighbors, gasses minorities...and the new "news" here is...?
Moran, to be fair, strongly denies he's anti-Semitic. "He just can't stand them f***ing Jew b*****ds," Hillary! 'explained.'
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
|
|
|
A Few of FR's Finest.....
- - 
