by John W. Lillpop
As the findings of the Iraq Panel reverberated throughout the universe on Wednesday, it was difficult to tell who was more thrilled by the public stoning of President Bush.
Did Islamofascists celebrate with the most gusto, or was it Democrat politicians who cheered the loudest at the awful news about America’s apparent failed policy in the Iraqi theater of the war on terror?
Incoming majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised that, starting in 2007, the Democrat-majority U.S. Senate will pursue a more aggressive oversight role, including an examination of faulty intelligence that helped to form the justification for the 44-month conflict.
``We are going to look on how the intelligence was manipulated prior to going to war,'' Reid told reporters.
Isn’t that just so typical of an out-of-touch liberal? Reid is full of himself when it comes to “Getting Bush,” but utters nary a word about doing whatever it takes to win the war.
Why in Hades do Democrats refuse to rally around the United States and it’s commander-in-chief during time of war?
Come on Democrats, you have both chambers of Congress and Rumsfeld’s head. It is time to win this danged war, rather than playing partisan politics--especially with so much at stake for the United States and the entire world!
Furthermore, President Bush and the Republicans did not go into Iraq without substantial support from Democrats.
For example, on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate passed the Joint Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.
Of the 77 votes cast in support, 29 were cast by Democrats including some liberal luminaries:
Biden
Clinton
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Edwards
Feinstein
Kerry
Rockefeller
Schumer
Oh, and let us not overlook another liberal who said "Yea!" That would be Harry Reid, from the great state of Nevada!
The final roll call for that historic vote is available here.
Those 29 Senate Democrats were joined by 81 Democrats in the U.S. House, including the likes of Jack Murtha, Tom Lantos, Patrick Kennedy, and William J. Jefferson.
For details concerning the vote in the U.S. House, go here:
All told, 110 Democrats joined most Republicans in authorizing President Bush to take military actions necessary to defend this nation against future threats.
To be sure, things have not gone well in Iraq, and America needs to find out what went wrong and why. But our immediate focus should be on winning the war on terror, rather than mutilating a sitting U.S. president in order to set the stage for the 2008 presidential elections.
As to the “Bush Lied, People Died” foolishness spouted by liberal kooks, remember that, according to leftist politicians and the liberal media, George W. Bush is a stupid simpleton.
That characterization begs the question: How was an intelligence-challenged Republican president able to manipulate 110 brilliant Democrats into voting for war?
Perhaps the real simpletons are those with a D next to their names?
