How Can Liberals Justify Themselves Over Their Betrayals On Iraq?

I see these “Bush lied, people died” junk and want to vomit. Allow me to explain why.

In April 2003, more than three out of every four Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein. And by my accounting, quite a few of those Americans were Democrats.

On October 11, 2002, nearly 60% of Democrat Senators in the United States Senate voted to pass the Iraq War Resolution, NOT because “Bush lied,” but because they believed (rightly, given the circumstances) that it was the right thing to do. In the House, the vote was 296-133; in the Senate, the vote was 77-23.

CNN noted that:

The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”… The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president’s father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

We did not go to war lightly, or without earnest debate. But it was recognized that – in the face of a corrupt United Nations, with permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council preventing ANY meaningful resolution to force inspections on Saddam Hussein – that diplomacy had fully run its course. The question was whether we would permit a WMD-armed Iraq, or whether we would go to war to prevent it.

Contrast what we did in Iraq with what Russia recently did in Georgia. Did Vladimir Putin of Russia have the legitimacy of being able to point out that Georgia had violated seventeen U.N. Security Council resolutions? Or even one? No. But the United States could point to the 17 resolutions Iraq had violated. Did Russia spend over a year engaging both Georgia and the world prior to launching its military action, as the U.S. did regarding Iraq? No. Russia just invaded without talking to anybody. The fact of the matter is that the United States did not rush into anything, and it did not ignore either the rest of the world or every legitimate means of diplomacy. The people who would morally equivocate between the Unites States and countries like Russia are the very worst sort of moral idiots.

So how did we get to the lowest and meanest political cycle – with the war in Iraq being its central rallying cry – given this early support?

The people most responsible to honesty, decency, and love of country in their politics is our political leaders. How did leading Democrats view Iraq and the looming confrontation prior to the war?

Senator Hillary Clinton, urging the support of her fellow Senators for the Iraq War Resolution, said:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

The following quotes come from Freedom Agenda. Each is sourced.

Sen. John Kerry, the Demcratic candidate for president in 2004, said on Mar 17, 2003:

“It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.”

On May 3, 2003, Kerry said:

“I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”

John Edwards, who was on the Kerry Democratic ticket in 2004, and who finished a strong third among Democratic challengers for the 2008 nomination, said:

“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Dec 16, 1998, said:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.”

And on Nov 17, 2002 she said:

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

On Oct 10, 2002, she said:

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Howard Dean, former Democratic candidate for president and current Democratic National Committee chairman, said on Sep 29, 2002:

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we’re clearly going to have to do something about it.”

Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Oct 9, 2002 said:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

I defy any liberal or Democrat to look at these statements and many others from their own leadership, and then defend the remarks and positions that these very same Democrats would subsequently take.

The question that I and so many Republicans and conservatives have is this: how can the men and women who said these things, along with many other prominent Democrats who made similar pronouncements, turn not only against how the war was being conducted, but against the very grounds for the war itself? The former can be justified; but how can Democrats possibly justify the latter? How is this not the most cowardly and cynical act of betrayal?

How can you Democrats possibly be proud of Sen. Harry Reid, who said “I believe that this war is lost“? How can you possibly continue to support him?

How can you possibly NOT be ashamed of Rep. Jack Murtha, who tried and convicted in the press what we now know were innocent Marines of the most heinous war crimes in Haditha?

There is simply no possible way that Democrats can justify their post-war behavior in light of their pre-war positions. Post-war Democrats literally call their pre-war selves liars; pre-war Democrats literally call their post-war selves cowards and even traitors. Democrats condemn themselves by their own words.

If you can show me a worse example of cowardly political backstabbing in the modern era, I would welcome the comparison.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “How Can Liberals Justify Themselves Over Their Betrayals On Iraq?”

  1. TennesseePaul Says:

    I enjoyed the read.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, Tennessee Paul

    Some things should be beyond political chicanery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: