best evidence yet that President Bush lied when he said Saddam Hussein sought
uranium from Niger has arrived: Bill Clinton said he didn't.
Some commentators like Bill O'Reilly have cooed that they've actually gained
a fleck of respect for the former president after he recently defended George
W's use of The Sixteen Words and reinforced Saddam's possession of WMDs,
but I'm not buying it. Rather than angering Democratic leaders and the party's
presidential hopefuls, it's more likely that the comments of Mr. I Did Not
Have Sexual Relations will actually satisfy their ongoing attempts to discredit
the current commander-in-chief.
After all, who better to persuade us that the president is a fraud than the
Democrats' most successful liar? It's a brilliant strategy, really. Since
the midterm elections last November practically proved that most Americans
will believe the exact opposite of what a Clinton says (at least for the
time being), maybe Terry McAuliffe decided to go for broke. If Bill Clinton
says the president isn't a liar, why then, he must be!
Okay, perhaps that's a little too much hyperbole. But I still think it's
a good theory. Nevertheless, even if Bill Clinton's latest proclamation was
the first stride in his "12 Steps to Honesty" program, don't be too hasty
to assume he intended Bush any approval by refusing to join in the chorus
condemning the President's war in Iraq.
Unlike President Bush, whose political decisions are driven primarily by
his moral underpinnings, Clinton's policy calculations were almost exclusively
motivated by public polls. Evidently, he's still at it. With Bush's approval
ratings resting around 55%, why would Clinton jeopardize his wife's chances
in 2008 by alienating moderate Democratic voters? Let's also not forget that
accusing Bush of lying would only recall his own mendacity. Ironically enough,
Bill Clinton reminds us of the eventual price of crying wolf: Americans aren't
likely to believe his defense of President Bush now anyway, even if his remarks
So, the Democrats are still left with a huge problem. They know the only
way to unseat President Bush in 2004 is to turn Americans against him. But
instead of offering up alternative ideas to Bush's foreign and domestic policies,
Democrats are apparently content to turn to melodrama in the attempt to invent
a presidential scandal.
In their latest attempts to prove that the elite media isn't biased, Congressional
Democrats and liberals have ridden the press's obsessive coverage of their
accusations that President Bush intentionally hyped intelligence reports
on Iraq's nuclear intentions and consequently duped the country into war.
Democrats now argue that WMDs probably don't even exist, when only months
ago they used their very presence as a reason to avoid war.
In one of the MRA'a (Media's Republic of America) most influential newspapers, the Washington Post,
an article this week (July 24) states, "Soldiers are still dying in Iraq,
and the administration is on the defensive about its justification for going
to war." Fourth graders understand perfectly why the United States went to
war in Iraq, but the country's enlightened class can't seem to figure out
why the world is better off without a regime of unapologetic murdering and
On the day that we found out we killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, Rep. Charles
Rangel not only refused to commend George W. Bush and our troops, but asked
why he should be impressed that we got a couple of "bums." Bums? Apparently,
run-of-the-mill criminals are to be equated with two tyrants who would make
Castro blush. Mr. Rangel also lamented that the United States "assassinated"
Saddam's sons, stating that this sort of act is against rules of engagement.
Perhaps the congressman would prefer that we firebombed entire villages just
to dispose of two people?
Questioning the efficiency of intelligence gathering, debating the extent
of our occupation of Iraq, and overall costs of the war on terror is healthy
for the country. But today's Democrats are more concerned with making vituperative
assertions assailing the President's character than they are about even giving
the impression that they care about our interests of national security.
Engaging in silly politicking is to be expected prior to election time, but
Americans should pay close attention to the party doing all the bickering.
Some conservatives have expressed concern that President Bush hasn't done
enough to combat the rhetoric coming from his opponents. While this
may be true, we can take comfort in knowing that he understands which battles
he should currently be fighting.
Liberals can claim that Bush has taken the country to war in order to suit
his own re-election ambitions, but as many experts have noted, he potentially
has much more to lose politically than to gain by doing so. Just reference
all the heat he's taken so far about the "failing" economy and military deaths.
However, the principal difference between Mr. Bush and his Democratic adversaries
should be evident. While Democrats have made it clear that they will resort
to anything to win the presidency next year, I believe George W. Bush would
gladly concede it if it meant not doing right by his country while he served.
We may never fully know the true intent of Bill Clinton's defense of President
Bush's war efforts. But one thing is certain: if in fact it is Bill Clinton
who's finally the one telling the truth, the Democrats might be in big trouble
Trevor Bothwell is the editor of The Right Report.