Kerry and Edwards Liberal Opportunists! No *****! Now tell us someting
we don't know.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040719-084057-4589r.htm
From its beginning on March 19, 2003, the war in Iraq has cast a wide
shadow over Democratic presidential politics. First, the war played a
pivotal role in the Democratic primaries. Now it has united two
senators on the Democratic ticket, presumptive presidential nominee
John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards. Both share the lonely,
politically hypocritical experience of voting to authorize the war in
October 2002 and then one year later voting against funding the
160,000 U.S. troops who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unlike the 1991 Gulf War resolution, which was supported by only 10 of
the Senate's 55 Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, who later
became the party's 1992 vice presidential candidate, the October 2002
war-authorization vote in the Senate attracted the support of 29 of
the chamber's 50 Democrats. These supporters included several senators
who had clear presidential aspirations at the time. They were Mr.
Kerry, Joe Biden and Tom Daschle (all of whom opposed the 1991 war
resolution); Mr. Edwards, the freshman senator from North Carolina;
and Joe Lieberman, who, like Mr. Gore, voted for the 1991 resolution.
(Interestingly, Florida's Bob Graham, who voted for the 1991 war,
opposed the 2002 resolution.)
Much to the surprise and discomfort of the ostensibly pro-war
Democrats who eventually sought their party's nomination, former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean raced to the front of the pack by exploiting
the deeply ingrained anti-war feelings of the party's base. In October
2003, the Senate was considering an $87 billion supplemental
appropriation bill to finance military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Zogby polls conducted within a week of the vote revealed
that Messrs. Kerry and Edwards trailed Mr. Dean in Iowa by 12 and 14
points, respectively, and in New Hampshire by 23 and 34 points.
Clearly, the use-of-force votes cast by Messrs. Kerry and Edwards in
2002 were not playing well on the hustings. In a desperate effort to
resuscitate his campaign, Mr. Edwards announced on Oct. 14 last year
that he would be opposing the supplemental. Having only weeks earlier
declared that opposing the funding measure would be "irresponsible"
and tantamount to "cutting and running," Mr. Kerry later completely
abdicated any leadership role. In an Oct. 16 Johnny-come-lately
message on his Web site, Mr. Kerry announced that he too would be
opposing the $87 billion measure, which passed a day later by an 87-12
margin.
Reviewing how Senate Democrats voted on the military-funding bill is
instructive. Among the 29 Democrats who had supported the
war-authorization resolution in October 2002, 22 voted for the 2003
funding bill. Three of the 29 were no longer in the Senate. That left
four, who opposed funding the operations they had earlier authorized.
One of them was the increasingly cranky Tom Harkin. Another was Ernest
Hollings, a retiring eccentric. The final two, Messrs. Kerry and
Edwards, comprise the Democratic presidential ticket.
In the wake of the Kerry-Edwards double flip-flop, it is worth noting
how the 21 Democrats who opposed the 2002 war-authorization resolution
voted on the bill to continue funding the U.S. troops six months after
they liberated Baghdad. Six of them opposed it. Paul Wellstone had
died. Tellingly, however, 14 Democrats who voted against the use of
force in October 2002 voted a year later to fund the troops
who were occupying Iraq and continuing the fight in Afghanistan.
Including many of the Senate's most liberal members, these
support-the-troops Democrats are Daniel Inouye, Daniel Akaka, Richard
Durbin, Barbara Mikulski, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton,
Jon Corzine, Jeff Bingaman, Kent Conrad, Ron Wyden, Jack Reed, Patty
Murray and Russell Feingold.
With two-thirds of the Senate Democrats who had voted against the war
now voting to support the occupying troops, was it too much to ask
Messrs. Kerry and Edwards, both of whom had enthusiastically endorsed
the use of force in 2002, to continue funding the military operations,
which they had every reason to believe would be ongoing a mere six
months after Saddam Hussein fell? Apparently, yes. For political
expedience, they abandoned the troops, and next week the Democratic
Party will reward them by nominating them as their presidential
standard-bearers
----------
Girlie Men Not Allowed:
http://www.georgewbush.com/Default.aspx
.
|
