*** ORBUSMAX GUEST OP/ED ***
THE U.N. LOVING TRIAD OF TOADIES - By Edward L. Daley
January 26, 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 warmonger.
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. Whose 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 "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 focusing
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Daley is the owner/operator of the news website The Daley Times-Post.