But the Left is good at avoiding the need to act on hopes. They can put "Free Tibet" bumper stickers on their cars to show their moral superiority, but ask them to confront China in a concrete way to achieve that wish and suddenly you'd get silence. No blood for Dalai Lamas, don't you know?
But I digress.
The Left continues the never-ending debate over whether we should invade Iraq to overthrow the Saddam regime. That we did that in March and April 2003, and that we have shepherded Iraqis to a new constitition and elections while building a democratic Iraq with a security force to defend it is apparently no hindrance to a rousing debate complete with accusations of conspiracies and lying:
The anti-war fundraising base of the Democrats -- as exemplified by organizations like MoveOn.org -- is powerful enough to require Democratic politicians like Harry Reid to pretend that all the WMD stuff began with President Bush. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, a gross and partisan lie.
Bongos , hand puppets, and inane rhyming chants won't make the case more compelling.
And as we consider whether democracy for Iraq was a bait-and-switch tactic of President Bush that was based on a gross and partisan lie, recall the opening of President Clinton's statement on signing the Iraq Liberation Act:
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
Somewhat further down, near the end, in terms that suggest universal agreement on the statement:
There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.
I can only assume that the Left will want to haul in truckloads of their compatriots to explain why they promoted the idea that Saddam should be overthrown to protect our safety, the security of Iraq's neighbors, and the freedom of the Iraqi people. They can line the streets with the above-mentioned bongo players, hand puppets, and inane chants.
As Max Boot notes (via Real Clear politics):
Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not "politicized" comes from an unlikely source — Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish "cabal" supposedly leading us toward "disaster." Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by "the French, the Germans, the Brits." The French, of all people, even offered "proof positive" that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes "for centrifuges." Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos "that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was … giving us disinformation."
So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.
Bring on the investigation over who is lying about Iraq. The Former Regime Elements, pushed and bolstered by the MoveOn.org jihadis (who are enraged that the Fitzwah that they hoped to use to decapitate the White House only passed judgment on Libby), have much to answer for in this debate.
We did the right thing leading our allies to liberate Iraq and we are building a better Iraq and a more secure world because of our sacrifices and the sacrifices of our allies and the Iraqi people.
