Liberal democrats (aren't almost all of them?)

A refreshing change is Sen. Joe Lieberman, who went to Iraq then got his own party mad at him for talking truth. Maybe the libs who inhabit this forum forget that most of their fearless leaders in the Democratic party supported the war, now villify Pres. Bush for continuing it (effectively!). Now we have them 'singing the same tune', beating the drums of war about the latest Islamic nutcase regine in Iran. Behold, the doublespeak continues:

"I just noticed something: Hillary is demanding action against Iran …but does Iran have any connection to 9/11? Have they attacked us? Is Iran is an imminent threat? Democrats in general need to answer some of these questions before they can even think about criticizing Bush for not already taking action.
The problem is that Democrats are stuck. They have burnt all their bridges and have nowhere to go. Many supported the war, (most of the intelligence was from the Clinton Administration after all), and voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. In deference to them Bush went to the UN and did everything he could to get as many countries on board as possible but in the end he failed to convince several key (Euroweenie) players, like France, but 'he had to do' what 'he had to do' as Hillary is now emphasizing and even encouraging Bush to do all over again.
You can't on the one hand say that you are so dumb that you were duped by the incompentent Bush (Jr.) into voting for a war you didn't want and on the other hand say that he better take quick action this time or else.
We have played this game before. Why should Bush listen to anything any Democrat says after these last few years of pure abuse? Democrats have consistently chosen the low road of partisanship over unity and compromise. Bush reaches out with a hand and Democrats bite it off.
Instead of honest disagreement democrats see 'evil geniuses' like Karl Rove manipulating around every corner. They cry out that each election they lose has been stolen. Each argument his administration makes is somehow the actions of a dictatorship trying to silence their 'dissent'.
But what standards have Democrats set out for the actions that Hillary Clinton is calling for in her new/same as the old 'rush to war '?
"(I)ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," said this national leader.
"(I)f left unchecked," the politician argued, "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability 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."
"This much is undisputed," declared this Democrat, as she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Townhall.com
What is she so sure about again? Sounds an awful lot like the following:
In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.
But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."
...The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action. On North Korea, the Bush administration has refused that nation's request for direct talks over its nuclear program and instead has worked in concert with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan. (completely biased) nytimes
So is Iran an imminent threat or not? They sure haven't attacked us. How can they be any danger to us? Certainly as much of a threat as Saddam Hussein was. Which is to say nonexistent according to the liberal comments here on watchblog. What's the rush? They're contained aren't they? Diplomacy needs time to work, doesn't it? And isn't diplomacy the key here? Or is it?
Is there any reason to believe that after calling for action a Democrat won't hesitate to turn and rend those they agreed with a day before? By the standards Democrats have set this President cannot receive their praise under any circumstances and will assuredly receive their contempt no matter what he does.
Bush is apparently deferring to allies, mounting a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries on board as possible... What the *flying nun* is Bush up to?! Is he channeling John Kerry?
The premise in all four points is that Kerry will be able to mobilize an international community that has been alienated by President Bush's strategy of preemptive strikes and by U.S. defiance of close allies and the United Nations. "We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low," Kerry said in a feisty speech at New York University. "We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. . . . I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start." washingtonpost
So which is it? Should we mobilize the Euroweenies or take decisive military action against Iranian nuclear sites? I sure hope Democrats figure this out sometime soon, because I'd hate to have Bush actually make a decision and have Democrats flay him alive for acting unilaterally/multilaterally as the case may be.
Or has this been a case of duplicitious talk all along? Say just enough about both sides of the issue so that in the end no matter what happens you take credit for whatever went right and accuse everyone else of failing to listen to what you said might go wrong, but which you nevertheless voted for anyway.
Rex

Liberal democrats (aren't almost all of them?)

Shining One

ithinkisee

Share this