After weeks of personal attacks on the credibility of his decision to invade Iraq, Bush finally came off the canvass to lay a few left hooks on some of his chief critics. Most of whom by the way voted to authorize the resolution to use force against Iraq. Just in case any one forgot, Bush's policy was not created in a vacuum or pulled out of thin air. This was an extension of American policy on Iraq that began with Bush 41 and extended through the Clinton administration. It seems as though the Democrats forget that it was President Clinton who initiated the Desert Fox bombing campaign against Iraq for the very reasons that were included in the Iraq policy continued by Bush 43.
That same policy was an extension of the United Nations who time and time again had passed ferocious but toothless resolutions ordering Saddam to comply on inspections. The straw that broke the camel's back was Bush's refusal to make endless paper threats. Considering the climate at the time, what was a prudent course of action? The country had been attacked and though it can be proved conclusively now that Iraq or Saddam had no direct involvement in the 911 attack what should the leader of a shaken nation done? We had years and years of diplomatic conflict over Saddam's efforts to gain and proof that he had used WMD, would it have been better to wait to see if he would use them again?
Forget all of that for the moment and examine the situation from the Washington political angle. The mid terms are coming up and no matter which party is out of power it will seek to find any issue that might enable it to make gains against the other. To Hell with the country's best interest, it is the party's interest that matters at the moment.
The Democrat's smell a little blood in the water after months of relentless attacks on a couple of rather thin issues. Prosecutor Fitzpatrick has spent two years investigating a non crime and comes up with an indictment of Lewis Libby claiming that he lied to a grand jury. In his statement Fitzpatrick identifies Libby as the first administration official to "out" CIA paper shuffler Valerie Plame. The ink on the indictment is barely dry when two very strange things occur. General Paul E. Vallely announces to the world that long before the "Plamegate" issue surfaced, Joe Wilson himself had told the general in the green room at Fox studios that his wife was a CIA agent. Joe responded in outraged indignation, however he has not responded to General Vallely's request to sue him.
This week comes another shocker. Despite Fitzpatrick's 2 year "exhaustive" investigation he gets a call from an administration source who says that he mentioned to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, that he had outed Plame a full month before Libby ever mentioned it. One wonders immediately why Woodward would allow Libby to be ruined in public by this accusation, put out of work and will probably be bankrupt by legal fees knowing what he knew? Why did the Post continue to hammer on the importance of alleged Libby wrong doing when they knew he didn't do it?
Apparently tiring of the Bush lied troops died mantra, Plamegate and the appearance of a steady stream of "duped" Democrats decrying his "manipulation" of intelligence, Bush fought back. Apparently these senators and others forgot that it was the exact same intelligence that they were receiving when they overwhelmingly endorsed the Iraq resolution. Unfortunately for these people their remarks both in print and on video can be immediately called up and reviewed. Chris Wallace made poor Senator Jay Rockefeller look like an idiot on the tube last week replaying his own remarks.
Bush fought back in two ways. First by his Veteran's Day speech and also by unleashing an unusually quiet Vice President Cheney on the opposition. After months of virtually unanswered attacks on him, Bush makes a few obvious comments about short memories and he is immediately attacked for questioning peoples patriotism and launching a coordinated attack against people of conscience.
The real damage done to the revisionists however came yesterday. A well respected Democrat, Rep. John Murtha had called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Faced with an opportunity to put the Democrats on record as to their real intentions, Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simple resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Since a resolution is only a sense of the membership and has no practical impact in law everyone would have an opportunity to say where they stood if only symbolically.
Of course the resolution was defeated by an astounding 403 to 3. Listen to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who said the Republicans "engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress." She called Hunter's resolution "a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform". After hearing Ms. Pelosi over the past few months, these comments either ring hollow or were comedic in nature.
It is getting more and more difficult to respect any of these people.
