October 08, 2004
The Perversity of Democratic Opposition
But if I don't have enemies I'm not doing my job.
I might throw out a curveball but I'll never throw a lob.
And people criticize me but I know it's not the end.
I try to kick truth not just to make friends.
-- Michael Franti
One of the reasons that Democrats annoy me to death is because a goodly number of them are oppositionalists. They feel that it's their patriotic duty to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable'. In other words, to be a constant pain in the ass to successful people. Such creatures can only exist within a particular realm of comfort themselves, but they will buy stressed clothing and affect a certain studied shabby chic and bohemian mannerisms to cloak that comfort. And most of all they will distrust shiny, happy people. It's an interesting perversion that is often useful when done by people who are actually brilliant scholars, but most of the time it makes otherwise reasonable people look like complete idiots. At least it does to me. They're not making friends, nor are they speaking the truth.
So this 'Fight the Power' attitude has manifest itself in most of the partisan attacks on GWBush's initiative in Iraq. As usual, the perversion against a good idea has rejected every rationale for armed conflict. Isn't it interesting that such oppositionists were silent in regard to their president's ideas.
One thing that you can say about Bill Clinton was that he was never at a loss for words. So just in case people have been baffled by Bush's speech impediments, here's what he means, courtesy of Bill Clinton (and Q&O)
- ...we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction
- Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.
- I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
- Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
- ...without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
- ...if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
- They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
- If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. [...] That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.
- The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
- ...without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.
- The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
- Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Now add AQ on top of that assessment and what do you get? According to the perverse, you get just another reason to delay and hope the Axis of Weasels helps out. That's perverse.
Posted by mbowen at October 8, 2004 08:30 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2637
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Perversity of Democratic Opposition:
� The Perversity of Democratic Opposition (Booker Rising) from Dean's World
Here's a piece by blogger Michael "Cobb" Bowen (and my fellow Conservative Brotherhood mate) outlining how Pres...
[Read More]Tracked on October 8, 2004 12:23 PM
� The Perversity of Democratic Opposition from Booker Rising
The moderate-conservative Republican outlines how President Bill Clinton held similar views about Saddam Hussein as President George W. Bush, which liberal Democrats willfully overlook when criticizing Dubya's initiative in Iraq. [Read More]
Tracked on October 8, 2004 01:25 PM
Comments
Zowie, Cobb. So lemme see if I have this straight: If someone disagrees with you re Bush's strategy on the WOT (specifically, Iraq), it must be because they're perverted (!) cuz, as everyone with any sense knows, the invasion was quite clearly the right thing to do. Uh-huh.
What say you of Republicans who think it was a bad idea, then?
Posted by: memer at October 8, 2004 10:45 AM
When Bill Clinton says it, its a rational assessment of threat. When President Bush says it, its war mongering in the interests of Haliburton.
Posted by: Jane at October 8, 2004 12:55 PM
One of the reasons that Democrats annoy me to death is because a goodly number of them are oppositionalists.
Which, if a Dem. was in the office, the Republicans would be doing as well. When Clinton ordered the military to bomb what some said was a bomb making plant, Republicans said he did it to get attention away from Monica. Don't forget that Delay and a handful of others started writing articles of impeachment at the start of Clinton's 2nd term.
But let me say it onemore'gin.
Iraq was attacked because Hussein gave money to the families of people who blew themselves up "attacking" Israel.
My thing is, they should have been upfront with it.
The rest of this stuff is smoke.
Posted by: EBrown at October 8, 2004 04:02 PM
Iraq was attacked because Hussein gave money to the families of people who blew themselves up "attacking" Israel.
My thing is, they should have been upfront with it.
Why would that be something to hide? How does something so "obvious" get lost in the shuffle?
Are you saying that is something in and of itself something to launch war over at the time Bush decided to?
Posted by: memer at October 9, 2004 02:15 PM