DEMOCRATS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:29:28 -0700 (PDT)

DEMOCRATS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES

 

 

 

http://www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html

 

Monday/Tuesday, April 24-25, 2006

 

 

 

DEMOCRATS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES

 

To listen to Democrats today, you would think they all opposed George

Bush's illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Bush, now at his lowest in

public opinion polls, is open game for his Democratic opponents. He is

being portrayed as a lying warmonger while the Dems are extolling the

virtues of their anti-war philosophy.

 

All this posturing is false. Four years ago, the Democratic Party

jumped on board the war bandwagon. Many voted to go to war and gave

resounding testimony to the evil of Iraq. However, if you believe the

messages being sent by Democrats, you would think that not one

supported the war.

 

The Boston Globe of April 22, 2006 carried an op-ed piece written by

2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. He mentioned his

appearance before the U.S. Senate and how he spoke of opposing the

Vietnam War. Then, he added:

 

Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history

repeating itself … Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our

troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who

dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.

 

Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best

way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their

lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people

and our principles.

 

Good stuff, but there some minor omissions on Kerry's part. He

supported the invasion of Iraq, and, at times during the presidential

campaign, called for more troops in Iraq than the Republicans sent.

Here are a few quotes from the past John Kerry, not the " enlightened "

one speaking today:

 

* " We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent

with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions

(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi

sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to

end its weapons of mass destruction programs. " (Oct. 9, 1998)

* " I will be voting to give the president of the United States the

authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein

because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction

in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. " (Oct. 9, 2002)

* " We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence

that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a

developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass

destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is

a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … And now

he had continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass

destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass

destruction is real. " (Jan. 23, 2003)

 

This does not sound like the Kerry of today. It is possible for one to

change opinions. However, when the person does, there is a usual

explanation of how he/she was previously misled or made bad

judgements. Not so with Kerry. For years, he supported military action

against Iraq. Then, he shows up speaking of a misguided Iraq war and

policy.

 

Madeleine Albright is another one who is changing her tune in the same

manner as Kerry: just give a speech that is opposite from your

years-long stance without an explanation for the change in course.

 

Al-Jazeera News published an article called " Albright Warns of Iraq

Distaster " on April 23, 2006. Here is the beginning of the piece:

 

Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. secretary of state, has warned

that the invasion of Iraq may end up as one of the worst disasters in

American foreign policy.

 

In an interview with the New York Times, published on Sunday, Albright

said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to

the United States.

 

" You can't go to war with everybody you dislike, " she said.

 

" I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American

foreign policy

 

" I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have

to choose democracy and it has to come from below, " she said.

 

Remember, this is the same Albright who told Leslie Stahl in an

interview in 1997 that the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children

at the hands of the embargo was a worthy result of U.S. foreign

policy. Here are a few statements from the old Albright:

 

* " Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a

great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will

use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies

is the greatest security threat we face. " (Feb. 18, 1998)

* " Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of

mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. " (Nov. 10, 1999)

 

Poor Saddam. In the space of a few years, he was relegated by Albright

from being the " greatest security threat we face " to not being an

imminent threat to the United States. They've even taken accusations

for Saddam being a sonofabitch away from him. The U.S. talks out of

both sides of its mouth.

 

Before and after the invasion of 2003, anti-war Democrats have argued

with me about the merits of the Democratic Party. I have heard, and

continue to hear, every lame excuse in the book about the party

acquiescing to the warmongers from " They had bad information " to

" That's not their real position. " Facts are facts. The Democrats

allowed George Bush to invade Iraq for one reason: they were afraid

that if the U.S. attacked Iraq and that the soldiers were welcomed

with flowers and candy, they would have been on the wrong side of the

issue and would have been considered anti-American. No matter how they

talk today, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, and many other Democrats

allowed the invasion to occur. Integrity, research and truth went out

the window.

 

Despite all their current anti-war talk, there is one aspect missing

from the hollow mouths of the Democrats: not one has mentioned the

plight of the Iraqi people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi

civilian deaths and the destruction of the country that came about

because of their silence.