Victor Davis Hanson: Democrat Lies About the War
"The president misled us." "Still no WMDs." "If I had only known then what I do now…"
This is the intellectual level of Democratic wartime criticism about the Bush administration as we near the third Iraqi election — the one that will finally give faces to the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world.
So what is behind this crying game at home — when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?
Bad polls and far-worse casualties. With over 2,000 American dead in Iraq, the politicians think their own brilliant three-week war was ruined by George Bush’s 32-month failed reconstruction.
But the Democratic establishment’s anger is even more complicated than that since it is not yet quite sure of the mood of the fickle American people.
True, from the very beginning a small group of leftists has done its best to mischaracterize the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as some sort of Halliburton, “no-blood-for oil,” “Bush lied/thousands died,” “neocon” war “for Israel.” But despite the occasional auxiliary efforts of the elite press, until now there were really no takers in the mainstream Democratic party for the vehement antiwar crowd’s slander for at least three reasons.
One was the crazies. By that I mean that the Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan factions have a propensity to go lunatic and say or do anything — like shamefully praising the murdering terrorists who blow apart Iraqi women and children and U.S. soldiers as "Minutemen,” or calling the president of the United States “the world’s greatest terrorist.”
A sanctimonious Jimmy Carter may sit next to the buffoonish Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention in VIP seats, but the inclusion of his name with Rep. John Murtha’s is still apparently considered by liberals to be an outright slander. So up until now invoking Bush as a "liar" and our enemies as "heroes" was considered over the top.
Two, the Democratic left wing was wrong on the Cold War and mostly wrong on Gulf War I. With minorities in the Congress, fearful that they might never again be trusted on national security, and cognizant that both Bill Clinton’s campaign against Milosevic and George Bush’s war against the Taliban had been relatively cost-free, they outdid themselves in calling for invasion of Iraq.
Go back and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the need to take him out. Only then can you understand why the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly, with a strong Democratic majority, to authorize a war....
comments powered by Disqus
John Edward Philips - 11/28/2005
Let's take some of these claims:
the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world
What happened to Lebanon? Sudan? This will be FAR from the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world.
we are so close to achieving our goals
I've heard a lot of different goals for the Iraq invasion, from WMDs to shutting down al-Qa'ida, but putting Shi'ite fundamentalists in charge was never one of them. Our worst nightmare under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, feared by both Democrats and Republicans, is coming to pass. The Democrats still stand for the old, bipartisan foreign policy. All this guy Hanson stands for is Democrat bashing, and aiding our enemies abroad.
Find out what is happening out there on planet earth, Hanson. Find out about the real threats to our national interest and security, and you will learn that this administration is not in the best tradition of the Republican party, in fact it is not in any tradition of the Republican party.
Stephen Kislock - 11/26/2005
Not the Intellectuals on the Left, but Politicians, there is a big Difference.
The Intellectuals of the Left Oppossed the War.
Politicians serve the People,the People watch what passes for news [fox]and were told Saddam had a role in 9-11, When he had no part in the Attack.
You're president does not care about Osama bil Laden, could it be Bush is too beholding to the bin Laden's to hurt one of them?
Yes, Mr. Alvarado,you are right Bush is an Idiot.
I will ask again, "Why does Osama bin Laden Live?
Steven R Alvarado - 11/26/2005
Hmmm. Let's see Bush is an idiot but he was able to mislead the elite intelectuals on the left into supporting the war. Things that make you say HMMM.
Mike Schoenberg - 11/26/2005
And what of the statements of Cheney and all the other neo-cons of Hussein with his WMD. The democrats were misled as the country was so asking us to read the statements of various politions or those 16 words that Bush had to retract is just so much more mush.
- Historian Fernando Prado on quest to find remains of Cervantes
- Historian shines a light on the dark heart of Australia's nationhood
- Female historian says human rights museum censored her
- Japanese historians slam sex-slave apology review
- Stephanie Coontz: "Marriages require much more maturity than they once did."