Démocrate Tin Men and Teddy...

By Mark Alexander · Friday, September 26, 2003

Top of the fold...

The Démocrates' Tin Man presidential lineup is at it again, ramping up its assertion that the elimination of Saddam's terror regime was a setback rather than a vast advance in prosecuting the war with Jihadistan. Ted Kennedy (D-UI) set the tone last week with this bizarre bit of bluster: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." Kennedy further suggested that $1.5 billion of the $4 billion monthly allocation to maintain the front with Jihadistan in Iraq is unaccounted for and being used "covertly" for bribes.

This week, however, a few of Kennedy's colleagues took him to the woodshed. "This is a serious charge and it deserves a serious response," said Sen. Bob Bennett. "If the charge made by the senior senator from Massachusetts is accurate, then the President is deserving of a serious rebuke. If, in fact, the charge is not accurate, the senior senator from Massachusetts is deserving of a serious rebuke." Sen. Rick Santorum weighed in with this: "Sometimes members of Congress with very narrow, parochial vision ... don't necessarily do what's best for the world." And House Majority Leader Tom DeLay topped that off, adding, "These comments are obviously for political gain and are as disgusting as they are false. Unfortunately, Kennedy's brand of hate speech has become mainstream in the Democratic Party -- and is so incoherent and hateful that frankly, I think it belongs on the [Jerry] Springer show rather than C-SPAN."

President George Bush finally began firing back in the political combat regarding justification of the war. Pressing his case with the UN, the President said, "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. ... Saddam Hussein's monuments have been removed and not only his statues. The true monuments of his rule and his character -- the torture chambers, and the rape rooms, and the prison cells for innocent children -- are closed. And as we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed."

Regarding Saddam's undiscovered WMD stores, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- unless, of course, you're a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination. The question is not whether Saddam had nuke and bio WMD, but where he hid them in the months during which the French were sticking their thumb in America's eye and stalling any military action against Saddam's rogue regime. We at The Federalist are thus convinced that finding and destroying these WMD stores has nothing to do with political expedience. Rather, it has everything to do with the likelihood that what we don't find today will visit our shores in a most terrible way tomorrow.

Ironically, even as skepticism grows over Iraq's WMD arsenal, inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency reportedly discovered traces of enriched, nuclear weapons-grade uranium at a second site in Iran, the Kalaye Electric Co. near Tehran. The first discovery of traces of enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility earlier this year confirmed accusations from U.S. intelligence, though apparently coming as a shock to international inspectors. Tehran faces an October 31 UN deadline to allow more, intrusive inspections and to prove that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Quote of the week...

"Twenty-four months ago -- and yesterday in the memory of America -- the center of New York City became a battlefield, and a graveyard, and the symbol of an unfinished war. Since that day, terrorists have struck in Bali, Mombassa, in Casablanca, in Riyadh, in Jakarta, in Jerusalem -- measuring the advance of their cause in the chaos and innocent suffering they leave behind. ...Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; ... between those who honor the rights of man, and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame. Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history. ... The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. ... The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties. And the United Nations can contribute greatly to the cause of Iraq self-government." --President George W. Bush addressing the UN, with an appeal to the organization to reconsider its opposition to the liberation of Iraq as part of the worldwide war on terror. (To read a complete text of President Bush's address, link to -- http://patriotpost.us/reference/bush-address-to-un-2003/)

Open query...

"Is America engaged in a major international war that requires a massive and prolonged response? If so, mustn't we act before terrorist threats become imminent? ...If so, isn't it smarter to fight the war on terror in the streets of Baghdad than the streets of Brooklyn?" --House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

In other news...

Moral clarity is still at the heart of the war with Jihadistan, and that is what House Majority Leader Tom DeLay reminded in his stirring defense of the administration: "The Democrat leaders must finally decide: Are they going to be the party of Franklin Roosevelt's moral clarity, or the party of Ted Kennedy's extremist appeasement? Our critics can try to change the subject, but the debate will come down to one question: Are we at war or not?"

Unfortunately, moral clarity is nowhere to be found in the Leftmedia's portrayal of our "failed policy in Iraq." With its incessant conjecture over "quagmires," an "emerging Vietnam," and the possession of a "moral" or "UN" mandate (as if the two could be mutually inclusive), the mainstream media has been anything but objective in its treatment of the war and postwar reconstruction of Iraq. "I don't think anybody who looks carefully at us thinks that we are a left-wing or a right-wing organization," mused ABC talkinghead Peter Jennings. Unfortunately, the facts don't lend credence to Jennings' assertion. In recent weeks, Leftmedia accusations have flown hot and heavy over alleged misappropriation of defense spending – as well as the "doctoring" of prewar intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs.

Here, then, are some samples of Leftmedia spin: "There's a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, nonexistent evidence," asserted CBS's John Roberts. "Before this war began, its opponents said -- and some of them were hounded into silence for saying so -- that Iraq had the potential to become a 21st century version of Vietnam. Is the comparison valid?" asks MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. "Is this truly a continuation of the war against terrorism, or is it possibly another drawn-out, inconclusive Vietnam War in the making?" inquires CNN's Brian Cabell.

In a moment of weakness (read: truthfulness), however, CBS's Dan Rather admitted, "Television sometimes has trouble with perspective, so you may want to note that in some areas of Iraq, things are peaceful." Some areas?

The biased reporting does more than create discord at home, however; it also strengthens the resolve of terrorists targeting our troops in Iraq. And it's not just Republicans who understand this. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) notes: "[The news media] are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded.... Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with 'the rest of the story,' the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy."

"In short," notes Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, "anchors are acting like they are the ones who run this country and could prosecute this war better than the Bush administration."

Emboldened by all the political discord fomented by the Tin Men and their Leftmedia cadre, the interim Iraqi Governing Council, already recognized by the Arab League, OPEC, the World Bank and the IMF, made an appeal to President Bush and the UNSC for autonomous self-governance by the end of the year. The tone of IGC's leader Ahmed Chalabi has become increasingly nationalistic, seemingly in confrontation of the Bush administration's plan for Iraq. However, Ahmed's parting with the administration's template for Iraqi democratization is likely a strategy to demonstrate that he is not the administration's "puppet."

Secretary of State Colin Powell met with representatives of the five permanent members of the UNSC in New York, responding to pressure from the Security Council, as well as from the Iraqi Governing Council itself, to more clearly delineate a plan for Iraqi autonomy. Also meeting with representatives of the IGC, Sec. Powell announced an initial timetable for the movement to Iraqi self-rule, beginning with a six-month deadline for the IGC to complete a national constitution. "They've got six months," Powell told reporters following the meetings. "It'll be a difficult deadline to meet, but we've got to get them going." The new constitution, the secretary said, would clear the way for free elections and the subsequent transition from U.S. administration to an American-led coalition occupation.