Geez, let me get
this straight. To talk about Bill Clinton’s avoidance of military service
and his protesting on foreign soil was a divisive, mean-spirited attempt
by Republicans to reignite the bitterness of the Vietnam War.
To question the President of the United States on his honorable service in
the National Guard during that same war, after it has been discussed in at
least two previous elections, is a fair-minded, intellectual pursuit of truth.
What we are witnessing, folks, is hypocrisy so pure that one can only hope
the American people get it before we get stuck with a Democratic administration
long on talk and short on specifics about how it would deal with the tough
issues our nation confronts.
A few other examples of Democratic inconsistency:
The Big Money scam: The same Democrats who bemoan
big money in politics have sought out, without shame, the financial support
of multi-billionaire George Soros even as John Kerry, heir of sorts to hundreds
of millions of dollars, leverages that wealth to finance his campaign. At
least Howard Dean was honest about his position on campaign finance.
The negativity scam: During the final years of
his administration and throughout the Gore campaign, all we heard about was
how Republican attack dogs had gone after Clinton and the Democrats, which
was, in itself, a gross distortion. Bush tried to bring a new tone
to Washington and has spoken nary a negative word against his opponents other
than to say, aw, shucks, it’s just politics, and he has been subjected to
a non-stop character assassination by the media and the Democratic leadership.
They have called the president a liar, they have accused him of desertion,
they have claimed he betrayed and intentionally misled the American people
on Iraq, charges which they know are false because they themselves reviewed
the same intelligence and came to the same conclusions the President did.
When the president’s defenders raise legitimate questions about Senator Kerry’s
record, however, what is the Democratic response? How dare the Republicans
The Iraq flip flop: They supported the war in Iraq;
they didn’t support the war. They supported regime change, as long as it
did not require any action or political courage. They believed there were
WMDs, but now they don’t. Confusing? You bet and hardly a recipe for a coherent
foreign policy. Even more confusing, the allies they want us to repair relations
with were precisely those allies who were most benefiting from a cozy relationship
with Saddam. So while they accuse the President of allowing American corporations
to participate in rebuilding Iraq (and, egads, actually getting paid), the
Democrats aim little criticism at those nations that would have allowed a
tyrant to persecute his people and defy the international community so that
they might profit.
Spending too much or too little? On the one hand
they accuse the president of being fiscally irresponsible (in the midst of
a major war), on the other they accuse him of heartlessly trying to destroy
programs for the disadvantaged. In fact, the president has tried to find
a healthy middle ground, spending too much here and there, but also trying
to build incentives and privatization into his proposals that would relieve
the American taxpayers over time.
The homeless conspiracy:
And while we are at it, perhaps the time has come to investigate what might
be the most remarkable conspiracy of our time. Apparently, there is an army
of homeless people that is on the Democratic payroll. As soon as a Republican
becomes president, they rush onto the streets of America. As soon as a Democrat
becomes president, they disappear even though there has been no change in
policy. Where do they go? Where are the Democrats keeping them? This could
make our holding of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay a minor issue
in comparison, if the media would do a little digging.
Corporate scandals: Same is true of corporate scandals,
actually. I find it remarkable that Enron and other corrupt corporate leaders
thrive throughout the Clinton years, including hanging out with Clinton,
but within months of taking office somehow years of misbehavior under Clinton’s
watch becomes evidence of Bush’s lenience toward big corporations.
The recession: And finally, as we all know, the
economic downturn did not start under Bush. The market was increasingly volatile
before Bush ever took office, and an economic downturn was seen and predicted
while Clinton occupied the White House. A fair-minded person understands,
of course, that President Clinton is probably not personally responsible
for the recession, but as long as Democrats want to assign responsibility,
I say pin the tail on the donkey.
know that politics is politics. Republicans have played these games themselves
from time to time. President Bush has stayed true to his commitment to not
engage in a lot of partisan sniping. The result is that he is getting bludgeoned
by the left, while taking heat on the right for not responding negatively
to his critics.
discourse on the Democratic side during a time of war, in a post 9/11 world
is nothing short of shameful. And it would be a shame if the American electorate
does not pass judgment on the quality and tenor of this rhetoric come November.
Shadroui has been published in more than two
dozen newspapers and magazines, including National Review and Frontpagemag.com.