|
THE U.N. LOVING TRIAD OF TOADIES
By Edward L. Daley
January 27, 2004
In September of 2002, while discussing President Bush's policy of preemption on the television program 'Meet The Press', Howard Dean said "Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way? It's not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block and tell people we're going to do what we want to do." In December of the following year, after Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a hole in the ground at a farmhouse just south of Tikrit, Dean made the following statement during a news conference in West Palm Beach, Florida. "This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war."
I see, so even though it was the current American administration that went to the UN and requested that that organization actually do something for a change instead of just passing more pointless resolutions; and even though it was the American foreign policy of preemptive war against terrorists and the regimes which support them that eventually lead to the overthrow of the Baathist regime in Iraq; and even though it was American soldiers who liberated most of Iraq, including Baghdad, and later hunted down and captured Saddam Hussein; and even though it is more American soldiers, as well as diplomats and private contractors who are primarily responsible for rebuilding Iraq with money contributed by mostly American taxpayers, we need to just forget all that and take the "American label" off the war.
How convenient that would be for Howard Dean, and indeed every other anti-war Democrat running for the highest office in the land this year. If we attempt to water down America's leading role in the Iraq War with trite, hackneyed remarks, the Deans of the world will then be free to dismiss President Bush's role in removing from power one of the most despicable regimes in modern history. Let's just share the credit for our victory with everyone who tried to stop us from liberating the Iraqi people in the first place. Yes, taking the American label off the war serves the extreme leftist arm of the Democratic party quite well politically. Never mind that doing so is truly offensive to the majority of people in this country, most particularly our soldiers, since it is also utterly dismissive of the tremendous sacrifices our nation has made over the past year. Never mind that we have endured those sacrifices in spite of all those countries in the U.N. that the Democrats are so keen on kissing up to now.
While nattering naysayers like Dean have done nothing but try to make everyone feel bad about our president, the war and our country, the men and women of our armed services have freed tens of millions of people, and the rest of us have gone even deeper into debt to supply them with the tools they've needed to do so. Joe Lieberman said "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today," and that, of course, is the truth. Yet hamstring Howie still feels justified in belittling our efforts in post-war Iraq at every turn, and for purely political reasons. In his estimation, we Americans were just playing "bully on the block" in the first place when we invaded Iraq without U.N. permission. When the president determined that some of its members were only acting in their own self-interests, while simultaneously being detrimental to ours, he was just behaving like a unilateralist war-monger.
Mind you, Mr. Dean is not alone when it comes to minimizing the exertions of his fellow countrymen in this war. John Kerry has been just as careless in that regard while attempting to discredit President Bush and pander to the more extreme factions within the Democratic party. "The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," Kerry said in July of last year. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently." Such a statement essentially diminishes what we have accomplished in Iraq, since it assumes that because we decided not to be shackled by the whims of certain U.N. members like France and Germany, everything we have done since the beginning of the war is somehow undesirable, improper and unseasonable.
Mr. Kerry is basically saying that we were disrespectful of the U.N. simply because we strongly disagreed with the notion that sitting around for another decade while Saddam Hussein built up his WMD arsenal was the prudent thing to do after the terrorist attacks of 09/11/01. That may well have been a predictable sentiment coming from those countries which made it clear to us, in no uncertain terms, that there was no way they were going to support a war in Iraq, but for one of our own Senators to adopt such an opinion is scandalous. Who's side is this guy on anyway? When did the dictates of a small number of bureaucrats from countries that have virtually never shown the U.S. any respect at all, trump the authority of our own president in matters of our national security?
Are these liberal wannabes trying to say that we OWE it to the U.N. to allow it to make our foreign policy decisions for us? Is it not enough that we asked the members thereof to please support us in our efforts to rid the world of tyrants and mass murderers, only to have many of them deride and berate us at every turn for doing so? Apparently not in the minds of Senator Kerry and former Governor Dean. Instead of backing away from all the left-wing, internationalist palaver and showing a little patriotic support for our war effort, they have decided to align themselves with every despot appeaser in this country and America-hating government in the world. I'm sure that really boosts the morale of our fighting men and women in Iraq, not to mention their families and friends back here at home.
The same goes for General Wesley Clark, who once seemed to be in complete support of American military intervention in Iraq, with or without U.N. support, but has recently changed his tune for the sake of political expediency. In his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002, Clark explained "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense." He then added that "Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there."
General Clark went on to state "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time." The General also mentioned that "even though we may not have the evidence as Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts (between Al-Qaeda and Iraq). It' s normal. It's natural." Of course, everything he said at that time is true, but now he would have us believe that he was never in favor of invading Iraq without formal U.N. support, as is evidenced by the following statement which he made at the University of Iowa only a year later, in September of 2003.
"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." What international solution? We tried everything we could to force Iraq to get with the program of international inspections for 12 years, and all we got for our troubles was a dozen and a half unenforced resolutions from the U.N. Security Council, a bogus WMD report from Saddam and a slap in the face from Jacques Chirac.
On Clarks web-site located at http://www.clark04.com/story/16, he writes that "Repairing the rifts caused by George Bush's unilateral march into Iraq would allow new possibilities for the United States to call on our allies to help us destroy Al Qaeda." Here we go again with claims of President Bush's "unilateral" action. Why don't these people ever say what they really mean? It WASN'T a unilateral march into Iraq and Wesley Clark knows it. It was simply a march which didn't include the "Axis of Weasel"! (See New York Post 02/14/03)
What is it with these Democrats anyway? Why do they all want us to think that they believe we needed U.N. approval before invading Iraq? Do they think that makes them more credible candidates for the presidency of the United States? The policy they apparently support serves only to weaken the office of the Commander in Chief, and it's clear that at least two of them never endorsed such a policy before they decided to run for that office against George W. Bush. Clark's own words speak for themselves on this matter, and John Kerry never demanded that President Clinton jump through any international hoops before supporting his truly unilateralist military actions. Heck, charming Billy didn't even bother to ask the members of Congress what they thought before bombing Iraq in 1998.
The other presidential hopeful in this triad of toadies, Howard Dean, has about as much experience with world affairs as my new Saratoga recliner, and it's anyone's guess as to what thoughts may be scampering around in that guy's mind these days. Since he got his butt stomped at the Iowa Caucuses on January 19th he's been acting like a bulldog on crack. I don't know which is more dangerous, a man who says he's willing to turn over the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States to the United Nations, but doesn't really mean it, or someone who actually believes that sort of politically correct, multi-lateralist blather.
Your guess is as good as mine, but I will say this, any presidential candidate who places the importance of a U.N. endorsement over the necessity for defending our nation from potential threats like the 'Butcher of Baghdad', is madder than any character Alice met at the Wonderland tea party. Shortsightedness occurs as a result of focussing only on that which one wishes to see, and the myopia of these three men is as obvious to me as noon is to a watchmaker.
|
