Liberal Lollygagging On Iraq
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (05/27/04)
ONCE AGAIN Unisom Kerry has been outfoxed by the dumb guy from Texas.
''The fourth step in our plan,'' said the President on Monday night, ''is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition.''
''At every stage,'' Bush continued, ''the United States has gone to the United Nations—to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction.'' America thanks our 15 NATO allies, he said, who are contributing over 17,000 troops to Coalition ground forces in Iraq.
He told us that the ''fifth and most important'' step to rebuilding Iraq is to support democratic elections to be held next January. He said that an independent election commission, headed by a woman from the U.N., will oversee the political processes.
In other words: Flip-flop on that, Sen. Kerry!
All along, Kerry’s primary objection to American policy has been that it’s not European enough. Forget the fact that from the beginning of 2004 to mid-March 2004 the number of countries with troops in Iraq increased by half. According to Kerry, we need every speck of human protoplasm from Moscow to Lisbon to be laced with pro-war fervor in order for our international agenda to have any legitimacy.
But after Bush’s speech, what is Kerry going to say? He can’t oppose our ''unilateral'' policy, because—now more than ever—our policy is anything but ''unilateral.'' Because of this address, all Americans can be certain that President Bush is entirely devoted to working hand-in-hand with the international community.
While we’re still waiting for Kerry to comment on Bush’s plan, it’s fairly likely that he’ll just mimic The New York Times and pretend that Bush didn’t give the speech at all. Like little children rebelliously pressing their hands tightly over their ears as the adults instruct them, the morning after the speech The Times suggested that ''[a] good start'' would be to ''go much further in internationalizing the next phase of the Iraq operation.'' (Gosh, why does that sound so familiar?)
Even sillier was Frank Rich’s pre-speech column in last Sunday’s Times. Week after week Mr. Rich demonstrates that he has no judgment, proving my long-time theory that working in close association with Maureen Dowd impairs one’s ability to think.
Rich was writing about Michael Moore’s newest foray into the propaganda industry, ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' the film that—if it’s anything like ''Bowling for Columbine''—is more crammed with inaccuracies than a Clinton press release.
In his movie, which was recently heralded at the Toss-It-In-The-Cannes Film Festival, Moore apparently uses actual footage of soldiers being killed in Iraq. Stunned that anyone would find this slightly off color, Rich writes: ''If Steven Spielberg can simulate World War II carnage in ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ it's hard to argue that Mr. Moore should shy away from the reality in a present-day war.''
For the sheer benefit of Rich, ''Saving Private Ryan'' was released over a half-century after the end of the Second World War. The Nazis and the Japanese had been soundly defeated, and all remaining veterans of the war were safe at home. Also, the ''carnage'' in Spielberg’s movie was shot by actors on a movie set.
In contradistinction, the footage Moore uses is real—real soldiers with real families shedding real blood. And, unlike World War II, the war in Iraq is still happening. Moore’s use of these images is nothing more than an organized attempt to destroy the morale of our troops.
Moore says he’d like ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' to be released on Independence Day weekend.
Democrats truly have a maniacal obsession with professing to support our troops, but doing everything they can to undermine the military’s ability to defend America. Their self-righteous boo-hooing about the various problems in Iraq is designed not to promote their alternate strategy or to improve the effectiveness of our current policy. Rather, it is intended to foment more hostility in the region, and to debilitate all of the positive steps President Bush has taken to free the Middle-East from its oppressive past.
Correction: Several months ago I penned a column, ''The Hillary Question,'' in which I wrote that Bill Clinton ''rape[d] Juanita Broderick.'' While this has been alleged, and is certainly not unbelievable, it shouldn’t have been written, inasmuch as it has not been proved.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
