Dems Play it Risky

The Sun Times article by John O’Sullivan clearly depicted how the Democrats are playing it risky when they criticize the Administration policy in Iraq. Their statements that the President “lied” about the threat of Saddam’s WMD program make them equally guilty of the “lie” because prior to the current administration and the war they were the ones expressing concern about Iraq’s WMD program. The following are some noteworthy points in the article:

“Most of the recent media commentary on the Iraq war in Washington has concentrated on actions of the president and the administration. Questions such as "Did Bush lie about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?" dominate the news coverage of the establishment media such as the New York Times, Time magazine and CBS.

But the position of the Democrats is at least as interesting as that of the administration. After all, the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war three years ago. Indeed, they did so again last week in the House of Representatives -- in a vote forced on them by the Republican leadership. But they also denounce President Bush for getting us into an "unnecessary" war. They claim (with varying degrees of vehemence) that he "lied" to maneuver the nation and themselves into an unwinnable quagmire.

What do they think they are doing? One thing they are not doing for sure is telling the truth. Norman Podhoretz last week published an article in Commentary magazine -- "Who Is Lying About Iraq?" -- that listed the strong pro-war statements from leading Democrats with brutal accuracy even as they were weaving and wobbling further into a quagmire of inconsistency.

Their calls for action against Saddam Hussein began before Bush was elected. Almost every leading and responsible Democrat joined this chorus. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, for instance, a group of Democratic senators including John Kerry, Carl Levin and Tom Daschle urged the president "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

They continued to issue warnings in the early days of the Bush administration and after 9/11. Sen. Hillary Clinton, for instance, said in October 2002, "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-Qaida members."

And Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee had and has direct oversight of intelligence, said: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years" (i.e., a mere two years from today).

Ever since the Iraq venture turned difficult, however, the Democrats have been inching delicately away from these bold positions. Today, they hum along with the mantra "Bush Lied." They insinuate that the president somehow manipulated the intelligence to deceive them and the country into war -- an allegation that two bipartisan official inquiries have shown to be false and a process which none of the Democrats has ever been able to describe, let alone prove. They lend credence to the fantastical theories that there was an administration conspiracy to conceal its own duplicity over intelligence and to destroy insider "truth-tellers" such as Ambassador Joseph Wilson (who is himself a liar and whose self-destruction has rendered any administration conspiracy needless). And, having sought to depict the Iraq war as a needless quagmire, they now hint at withdrawal.”