The Left’s War Hysteria, Responsible Leadership, and the President
One of the most disheartening and aggravating aspects of the war in Iraq has been the behavior of liberal leadership among US Senators and Representatives. I fully expect anti-war crazies such as Code Pink to cross lines that shouldn’t be during a time of war, but I expect a certain statesmanship from elected leadership whether it agrees or not with the war.
I expect differences to be expressed respectfully during a time of war. I expect the President, our Commander in Chief, to be respected. I expect arguments regarding the conduct of the war to be kept in perspective. Why? Because the dynamics are different at war time. Right now we have a president with incredibly law approval ratings and it isn’t because he is Richard Nixon, Adolph Hilter, or Vladimir Putin. It’s because the elected leadership of the left and the mainstream media has focused on tearing him down.
What’s so upsetting is that the elected liberal leadership must know that doing so hurts the war effort and in turn our troops. They must know this and if they don’t, there must be some disconnect with reality. Or worse, they do know the harm they are doing to the war effort and our troops, but don’t care.
These leaders should be standing up to shameful and deceitful attacks on the President such as the “Bush Lied, People Died” nonsense. Senator Kennedy, Obama, Reid and others should have been lined up to defend the President against such outrageous charges. Inconceivable? In this day and age, apparently.
On this front the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a report that - according to Washington Post Editorial Editor Fred Hiatt - largely exonerates President Bush from these charges of deceit. A few samples from his column:
There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
The ultimate point is to demonstrate what the elected liberal leadership has known all along: that President Bush and his administration got some things wrong (as did many others), but that doesn’t mean they lied or tried to deceive the American people. That same leadership knows there is a difference between a lie (with includes intent) and a mistake of fact, yet they allowed the radical anti-war left to smear our President during a time of war. It’s shameful.
10 Jun 2008 03:40 am Challen 0 comments