“Deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of innocent people.”
“Invading and occupying Iraq will likely undermine American national security, perhaps catastrophically so.”
“It (the Iraq war) could shake the U.S. economy.”
“It’s more likely that the Republican Guard will remain holed up in Baghdad, fighting a house-to-house war of attrition.”
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. The New York Times and the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute flooded their papers with predictions that were absolutely dead wrong. Let’s not leave out my favorite accusation: Iraq will be the next Vietnam.
War opponents warned against inevitable terrorist attacks at home, Iraqi missile attacks on Israel, Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against United States troops, deadly and bloody urban warfare, destabilizing Middle East governments and “creating 100 bin Ladens,” as the foolish Egyptian President Mubarak said.
I am not surprised liberals are dead wrong again when it comes to war and national security. I can’t remember the last time liberals either were correct or credible with issues of defense and national security. Liberals have fared well in terms of rewriting history to make themselves look better. Former President and now irrelevant Jimmy Carter in the New York Times said the war in Iraq reversed “consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our greatness.”
I don’t know what happened to Jimmy Carter, but it seems to me after Ronald Reagan booted him out of the White House, he has suffered delusions of grandeur. As you may recall, liberals in Congress were very opposed to Reagan’s raising the stakes in the Cold War. The liberal-dominated Congress of the ’80s forced Reagan to increase domestic social spending or he would not get defense initiatives funded. Liberals laughed and snickered at the idea of strategic defense initiatives such as “Star Wars.” But now, 20 years later, these same liberals claim they gave “bipartisan” support in the fight against the Soviets.
I would not be surprised if current Congressional liberals such as Tom Daschle (D-SD) or Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backtrack in their anti-war sentiment. They even convinced some wayward “conservatives” to agree with them, though I am sure they are regretting it now. The elder President Bush’s national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Saddam would be likely to conclude he has nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.”
Poor Brent, wrong, dead wrong, now don’t you feel foolish?
Brent Scowcroft, the New York Times, the Cato Institute, Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi aren’t the only liberals and closet liberals who will come out of this war with eggs on their faces.
Former General Wesley Clark, who is entertaining the idea of running as a Democrat against President Bush in 2004 according to CNN’s All Politics, went on CNN saying President Bush wasn’t giving his commanders what they needed to win the war and enough troops were not in Iraq to fight a successful war. Poor Wesley. Wrong, dead wrong.
The Democrats were touting Wesley Clark as their only potential candidate with defense credibility. Too bad for the Democratic party, Wesley Clark was wrong and no longer is credible, and not a very good military consultant as he has proven. Perhaps CNN should rethink paying him for bad advice.
The bottom line: Liberals and Democrats were opposed to an Iraq war for so many reasons, and they were wrong in every instance. Now they have to backtrack and defend the indefensible. The successful conclusion to this war and the liberation of an enslaved people has made the GOP and me happier than we ever expected to be; it has de-legitimized Democratic opposition to the war and completely stripped them of national security credibility in a post-Sept. 11 world. Bring on the 2004 election and with it, a landslide re-election of President Bush and continued GOP-dominance of Congress. A stunning defeat in 2004 for Democrats is almost inevitable for one reason that a well-respected scholar and friend pointed out: “When it comes to national security issues, leftist peaceniks and their libertarian fellow-travelers both cannot appreciate the need for a strong military posture in confronting the dangers our country faces.”