Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Pres. George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (520)	3/10/2003 12:35:45 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 601

Now They Tell Us Why are Democrats who voted for war now siding with France? Monday, March 10, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003178 President Bush's words and somber tone show that he believes America could soon be at war. So it is worth more than passing partisan interest that now is the time that the Democratic Party has decided to mount a coordinated assault against Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. There have been a couple of exceptions, notably Texas Representative Martin Frost last week, but the strategy of Democratic leaders is unmistakable. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made Iraq the subject of her first major foreign-policy address on Friday, a critique that could have been written in Paris. Tom Daschle is in full antiwar mode, and Ted Kennedy is assailing the President on every TV show that will have him. These Democrats have every Constitutional right to do this, but Americans have a right in turn to ask: Why now? Yes to Disarming Iraq 29 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass a Senate resolution on October 11 authorizing President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq: Max Baucus (Mont.) Evan Bayh (Ind.) Joe Biden (Del.) John Breaux (La.) Maria Cantwell (Wash.) Jean Carnahan (Mo.) Tom Carper (Del.) Max Cleland (Ga.) Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) Tom Daschle (S.D.) Christopher Dodd (Conn.) Byron Dorgan (N.D.) John Edwards (N.C.) Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) Tom Harkin (Iowa) Fritz Hollings (S.C.) Tim Johnson (S.D.) John Kerry (Mass.) Herb Kohl (Wis.) Mary Landrieu (La.) Joe Lieberman (Conn.) Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) Zell Miller (Ga.) Ben Nelson (Neb.) Bill Nelson (Fla.) Harry Reid (Nev.) John Rockefeller (W.Va.) Charles Schumer (N.Y.) Bob Torricelli (N.J.) These are the same leaders, after all, who made their case to Congress last October and lost. The Senate vote authorizing war against Saddam Hussein was 77-23, with a majority of Democrats (29 of them) in support. We list that roll of approval nearby, including the names Kerry, Daschle, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton and Edwards. As antiwar Democratic candidate Howard Dean has noted, wasn't that the time for the war's opponents to speak up? Mr. Daschle is in particular beating the antiwar drums, declaring last week that the Bush Administration is "rushing to war without adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally or with a very small coalition of nations." Asked by reporter Major Garrett if anything had changed since last fall, Mr. Daschle replied this way: "Oh, absolutely. I think what's changed mostly, Major, is the extraordinary disintegration of support in the international community. I assumed last fall that we would be able to build the same coalition that we had in '91. That has not happened. In fact, if anything, our situation has put us into a more isolated position than I ever anticipated." This is rewriting history. We don't recall hearing last fall that Democratic support was contingent on the right of French first refusal. We've re-read the Joint Resolution on Iraq and nowhere can we find the words "France" or "Germany." Nowhere does it say that the President has to clear his decisions with Gerhard Schröder or Vladimir Putin. The Joint Resolution, which passed less than three weeks before the election, does refer to the U.N. Security Council. But it does so only in the context of "support for United States diplomatic efforts." The pertinent section declares support for "the efforts by the President" to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." That is exactly what this White House did the following month. Yet while Mr. Bush now says that his first duty post-September 11 is to ensure the safety of the American people, Mr. Daschle says his priority is deferring to the French on Iraq and "that military invasion today would be premature." The amnesia of the Democratic leadership includes the Joint Resolution's very tough language about Saddam Hussein. To pick one example: "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; ... ." In other words, the policy of "regime change" toward Iraq was first signed into law by Bill Clinton after it had passed by unanimous consent through a Senate that included both Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. Which brings us back to why now? It's hard to find any answer beyond naked partisanship and opportunism. A vote for the war last October got Senate Democrats past mainstream voters in November. But it also angered many core Democrats, who according to polls now oppose the war by two-to-one margins (in contrast to the nearly 60% of all voters who support Mr. Bush). Democratic leaders want to appease those core supporters, while at the same time positioning themselves to claim told-you-so rights against Mr. Bush if the war or its aftermath goes awry. And if all goes well, no problem. They can always resurrect that October endorsement. If this seems too cynical, keep in mind it is precisely the have-it-both-ways strategy that George Mitchell pursued when he ran the Senate before the Gulf War in 1991. His right-hand man at the time was Tom Daschle. We are not, let us stress, questioning the patriotism of any of these Democrats. But what should be questioned is their judgment. So close to war, and often in stark contrast to their previous votes and positions, the leaders of the party of JFK and FDR now see fit to side with France and Russia against an American President. No wonder voters are reluctant to trust Democrats with the responsibility for ensuring American safety and liberty.