Before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker even made it to the halls of Congress to give a progress report on the troop surge in Iraq, before one word has even been spoken aloud, the general’s remarks had already been dismissed. Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, made headlines by declaring – before the general had officially submitted his required report to the Congress or answered any questions, mind you – that “General Petraeus is dead, flat wrong …”
Bear in mind that the general and the ambassador have both been on the ground in Iraq on a steady basis and have been constantly in the mix, both politically and militarily, as opposed to Sen. Biden and many other members of Congress who make an appearance, smile for the cameras, press a little flesh, and determine by such brief interludes that they have the whole picture, the only point being that there will be no serious discussions beyond what it will take to make headlines. Rather than even pretend to be serious about such an astounding commitment the US has made to the people of Iraq, the focus will be directed more toward what will be required to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Just as a side note, this is part of the reason why I have such serious misgivings about current office holders seeking higher office. To a cynic like me, everything said and done is highly suspect. Everything is about political posturing.
It makes one wonder what alternatives really are available if there is nothing but finger-pointing and name-calling with Harry Reid leading the way. Seriously, what is the alternative? What do Democrats hope to achieve by demanding withdrawal of all troops? Is there a master plan in the offing? Because if there is, it is time to show. It is not enough to point fingers, call names, and find fault. Any one single person among all Americans, regardless of experience or knowledge, can find fault to one degree or another. It takes no real insight to see something and just know that something does not add up. Then again, we’re not talking about Joe-on-the-street. We’re talking about senators who want to be the next president, senators who want their respective parties in control of the Congress and the White House, and senators and members of the House who have been in government and – presumably – in the know for years. Why is it that now in the advent of an election year, the best we are offered is what’s wrong? And we’re supposed to take these candidates seriously for what reason?
It is almost as if Democrats would wish for the return of Saddam Hussein if it were possible. At least during his time of terror, the Democrats could (and did) strut around making empty gestures (and headlines) directed at Saddam and his designs on regional domination. “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” William Jefferson Clinton
Now that Saddam is out of the picture and the imminent threat which apparently existed during the reign of a Democratic president but somehow disappeared with no evidence of disposal prior to President Bush taking office, the Democrats have forgotten. Eight years, after all, is a long time. I freely admit that it is often I don’t remember at noon what I had for breakfast that day, but while Mr. Clinton was in office the threat seemed so obvious, so clear, so “imminent”. Now we’ve attacked and dismantled an “innocent” dictator/butcher and have done nothing but make the world a more dangerous place. Even more, all we have to do – according to the Democratic “plan”, if there is one – is withdraw our troops immediately, and this will all go away and there will be peace and prosperity for all.
The time has come for serious legislators to come forward and put aside the political nonsense that has come to be known among right-thinking Americans as the electoral process. It is time for the Congress to come to terms with its lower-than-George-Bush approval rating and get busy doing the job they begged for the chance to do. It is time to recognize that it is perfectly ok to express concerns without rejecting experience out of hand before having heard the first word or asked the first question. It is time to move forward. As it is now, Osama bin-Laden is currently getting as much press time in the US as the Congress. Who is being taken more seriously?
2 comments:
"It is almost as if Democrats would wish for the return of Saddam Hussein if it were possible."
I agree with much of what you have written, but there were one or two things I'd like to mention. For example, I understand the sentiment of the quote above, but I question its rationale. I have often heard this comment used to undermine the Democrats' criticism of the war and, more specifically, its horribly mangled prosecution and management. It's a show-stopper comeback designed to silence the criticism of political opponents and avoid dealing with valid criticsm - and therefore, quite disingenuous, I think.
But when we look at the Saddam era and what we have now, actually, I can understand why many would prefer an impotent Saddam to what we have now in Iraq. Saddam was a brutal dictator, true. But there is a tremendous amount of chaos and lawlessness, terror and bloodshed in Iraq now. I'm not sure it's much better now, if at all.
More importantly, when Saddam was in power, Iraq was a decidedly secular state. He was the enemy of those like Bin Laden and Iran who sought to incite people with religious fervor. Saddam allow religious zealots any political power in Iraq - they were his enemies.
Now in the political vacuum that ensued after Saddam lost power, religious zealots have taken over power and Iran has finally achieved the influence they have coveted. When Saddam was in power, at least he provided a check against Bin Laden and Iran -- he was an enemy of both. Now, however, religious fanatics have received a windfall because of our amazing lack of post-war planning and execution. This reality along with the daily carnage (American and Iraqi) and a new generation of terrorists ready to aid groups like al Qaeda is the legacy of our misadventure in Iraq. With that in mind, yes, a WMD-less Saddam quite probably was the preferable alternative.
Very well said, "anonymous".
Post a Comment