The “Politics as Usual” Crowd and Terrorism
By Vincent Fiore (10/16/05)
Many throughout the country have clearly forgotten the events that happened on September 11, 2001.
Now that the site of the world trade center resembles nothing more than an urbanized tract of land--as opposed to a symbol of American might and freedom--most of us have reverted back to basics: Political Finger-Pointing 101.
We can all go back and say that America chose to forget--or ignore--the first world trade center bombing in 1993 as well--along with the scattered bombings against American interest and lives around the globe throughout the Clinton Administration in the 1990s.
Did Bill Clinton drop the ball…fail to connect the dots…wag the dog during the nineties instead of fighting terrorism? Indeed. A more ineffectual and flawed president in regard to terrorism has not been seen by the American electorate.
Still, what does it get us by knocking Clinton over the head for what, in principle, has nothing to do with him? Clinton did not bomb anything, anymore than did Ronald Reagan in 1983 in Lebanon, where 241 service personnel were killed via a terrorist attack.
But knock heads we will, even if they are each others. Here in New York, Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg has to somehow justify taking precautions against a possible attack on the city’s subway system. Mostly, the mayor has had to deflect attacks from those within the minority of political power in relation to Party. The minority party, not surprisingly, is more than willing to use what power they do have wrongly, in the hope of acquiring more of it.
I refer, of course, to the constant back and forth of the nation’s two major political parties. Certainly, one party has been much more vituperative and strident than the other. If you’re thinking “He must mean the Democrats,” go to the head of the class.
Our friends on the left never tire of the same old routine. It does not seem to matter that they and their peers are the very same Democrats who were sounding the alarm against terrorist threats like Iraq only a few short years ago:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
-President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
-Former Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
-Senator and 2004 presidential runner-up John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Now, these same political figures who seemed to know best regarding Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, have either suffered a massive drug-induced case of forgetfulness, or have eaten of the tree of demagogic opportunism.
More likely is a third choice: Democrats smell GOP blood in the water.
Democrats believe that the twin disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, coupled with high energy prices, low stock market gains, and a few congressional and administrative scandals mixed in, (Rove and DeLay) have weakened Bush measurably. And so they have.
But the crowning jewel of Democratic Party crowing over Bush’s anemic poll numbers is still entrenchment against the war in Iraq, or rather, just who is running it. For if the truth were to be told, Iraq is on its way to being a democracy, albeit a fledgling one.
You would think that the Party that inhabits the noun, “Democracy” would encourage, even celebrate the tenuous hold of Iraq onto Democracy. No, no; not this Democratic Party.
Today, in a forthcoming interview with the Ladies Home Journal, you can read former President Bill Clinton stating that “the odds are not great of our prevailing there.” Clinton also calls the Iraq war “a quagmire” and warns “it could go wrong.”
On July 30, former President Jimmy Carter stated--overseas no-less--that he “thought then, and think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false.”
Many others of liberalism’s leading lights, like DNC chairman Howard Dean, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate minority leader Harry Reid, have stated almost daily that the war in Iraq is unnecessary, ill-conceived, and unwinable.
One wonders if the keepers of freedom, America’s armed forces, agree with the above sentiment.
Still, so many of our fellow citizens fall for the nonsense that is ladled out daily by our friends on the left, never questioning, or realizing, that these people were of the very same Democratic Party that originally called for the policy of “Regime change” in conjunction with Iraq.
America, behind the leadership of President Bush, will fight terrorist and terrorism until it no longer has to. Bush has often stated that the fight we wage today will be the same fight that will be waged for years to come.
One wonders: Since the president has also stated many times that this war will exceed his time in office, will Democrats’ obscene and terrorist-aiding rhetoric also carry over to the next administration in 2009?
If it’s “President Giuliani ” or the like, Howard Dean and company will exhaust the lexicon in the negative, thereby continuing with the Democrats’ destructive “politics as usual” platform. But, if by some misplaced whim of the voters to opt for a “President Hillary Clinton,” well then, Democrats will once again find the proper wartime prose, and even the backbone to possibly mean it.
Until then, Democrats continue their fight against what one-time media and anti-war tool Cindy Sheehan once called “America’s biggest terrorist,” George W. Bush.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
