Bipartisan BS

Dan Balz of the Washington Post subscribes to the silly notion that there was a period of bipartisanship in the wake of 9/11.

Katrina Crisis Brings No Repeat of 9/11 Bipartisanship

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A19

When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president's and the federal government's response.

The starkly different verdicts on Bush's stewardship of the two biggest crises of his presidency underscore the deepening polarization of the electorate that has occurred on his watch. This gaping divide has left the president with no reservoir of good will among his political opponents at a critical moment of national need and has touched off a fresh debate about whether he could have done anything to prevent it.

As if.  The Democrats and the extreme left were always on the attack, but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, folks in the Democratic leadership were at least smart enough to know wasn't really a good time to go on the offensive.  While MoveOn.org, A.N.S.W.E.R., and the rest of the anti-American crowd protested action in Afghanistan, the Democratic Party for the time being presented the picture of American solidarity.  But it was pretty clear they were uncomfortable.  They didn't like being the minority, and what was worse, because of forces beyond their control, they found themselves distastefully on the same side of an issue as their political enemy, George W. Bush.

But after Afghanistan came the invasion of Iraq, and for left leaning Democrats, especially those aspiring to the presidency, it was their release from the awful constraint of having to pretend to bipartisan sentiment.  Iraq represented political opportunity, and they seized it with delight. Even moderate Democrats began to test public acceptance of attack politics in a time of war. 

John Kerry set the stage in a Senate speech that outlined his reasons for supporting military action against Iraq.  But before we get into what he said in the Senate, let's look at some key paragraphs from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.  This is what Senator Kerry actually voted to support.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

The Senator's explanation for supporting the resolution was vintage Kerry.  He was voting for the resolution, but he was not voting for the resolution.  In his speech from the floor Senator Kerry framed his own separate resolution, and it was his resolution he would vote for.

In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction...

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

According to his impromptu resolution crafted on the Senate floor, the only justification for military action was the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, and according to his resolution U.N. weapons inspectors were to be entitled to some indefinite time period, of which he would be the judge.  And his final condition was that the Administration seek permission from Germany and France before taking any action.  To no ones surprise, the Administration abided by the actual resolution rather than Kerry's deliberately restrictive rationale.  The results were predictable.

When Kerry gave that speech it was a clear signal that he was locked and loaded, waiting for the invasion to go forward when he would open fire.  Since the 48 country coalition took action against Saddam Hussein didn't include either France or Germany, the Senator accused the Administration of acting "unilaterally".  Since the weapons inspectors weren't given unlimited time to inspect, Kerry said diplomacy had not been exhausted.  When Kerry gave his speech to support the resolution, he knew it was only a matter of time before he would be comfortably free to criticize the President -- even in time of war.  Conveniently it was just in time for him to pursue his highest political ambition -- the presidency. 

The rest of the pack followed suit with an explosion of criticism.  They posed patriotically as they fired their salvos.  Out came their old campaign caricatures of George Bush.  He was a liar who would stop at nothing to expand his power. Resurrecting the fiction that the 2000 election had been stolen, they indulged themselves in ecstasies of delicious, self righteous rage declaring, "We were lied to! He said there was an imminent threat! He lied about weapons of mass destruction! There was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda! He said Iraq was linked to 9/11! Saddam Hussein was no threat! It was about the oil! It was all about making money for his friends at Haliburton!"  The attack was aided by a leftward leaning press.  The tone was set for a 2004 Democratic presidential campaign that was remarkable for its ugliness.  An astounding level of dishonesty reached its high point with the 60 Minutes II slander of the President that was based on forged memos, claimed by Dan Rather to be from the personal files of a dead man.

Today is different from the days immediately following 9/11 in only one way.  There's no need to wait before going on the attack.  It began immediately with the idiotic charge by Robert Kennedy that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was reaping the what he had sown by opposing the Kyoto Protocol when he was Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  Global warming heightened Katrina's intensity, and it's the fault of the Republicans.  Inevitably, the race card has been getting some play.  Because so many of the people affected are African Americans, Democrats have compared refuge at the Super Dome to life in the cargo hold of a slave ship. 

The absurd campaign is under way, with even the hurricane itself the fault of the Bush Administration.  Just as Edward Kennedy gave not the slightest thought how the troops might be affected by his anti-war rhetoric and comparisons of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag, the complaints coming from the Democrats over the response to Katrina have nothing whatever to do with the people of New Orleans who are suffering.  The target is the Bush Administration.  Katrina is opportunity. 

But it's not working for them.  Already we see the American people are not buying in.  Get ready for a string of election year smackdowns for the Democrats.

Comments

[nasty fetish pass]

Not much on my mind right now. I haven't been up to anything. Today was a complete loss. That's how it is. Not much exciting going on these days.