After some of us began to ask which part of the war on
terrorism Democrats support, Larry Kudlow put the question
directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."
Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I
voted for war in Afghanistan."
On "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, aspiring House speaker
Nancy Pelosi denounced the war in Iraq as not "part of the war on
terror." The war on terror, she said "is the war in
Afghanistan."
So that's it. The one part of the war on terror -- or
"so-called war on terror," as New York Times so-called columnist
Bob Herbert calls it -- Democrats even pretend to support is the
war in Afghanistan.
Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, Democrats had no choice
but to vote in favor of that war -- of any war. (Save one member
of Congress -- guess which party? Answer: Rep. Barbara Lee,
Democrat, of California.)
If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and
waited to attack Afghanistan, Democrats would now be pretending
to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about
Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban
didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy? How do you define
"victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire -- aahhhhh!
The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan
is that most people can't remember what liberals said five
minutes after they said it, much less five years later.
In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces
to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying, liberals were not
the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.
In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the
Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in
Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech
bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to
do."
Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the
Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said
on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be
toppled. He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I
think they can hold on for a while. They were very
resilient."
Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin
Laden was innocent until proved guilty.
Except for a few idiots like Biden, Richardson and Dean, most
politicians -- who have to run for election -- duly voted in
favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the
media bash it for them. (Remember: A lot of them voted for war in
Iraq, too.)
Democrats who would not have to face voters -- we call them
"reporters" -- were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire"
approximately six minutes after we invaded.
Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a
book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding, also said the
war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.
On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan -- not
Iraq: "Although there is little evidence -- yet -- that the U.S.
approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White
House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original
strategy."
Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the
recycling bin.
The media gave us gleeful reports on friendly fire incidents
in Afghanistan, incessant body counts, numbers of civilian dead
and polls showing that the rest of world hated us. Christiane
Amanpour reported on CNN in February 2002 that "77 percent of
those (Muslims) interviewed said the U.S. war in Afghanistan was
morally unjustifiable." The Muslim world hates us -- because of
the war Democrats claim to support.
In an Oct. 27, 2001, column titled "How to Lose a War," New
York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that the Taliban "are
proving Viet Cong-like in their intractability." He stated
categorically that "we're losing that battle for Afghan hearts
and minds" -- proving Rich to be as competent a military analyst
as any longtime New York Times theater critic could reasonably be
expected to be.
Say, when is the Times going to hire generals to review the
latest Broadway offerings? I think more people would like to read
Tommy Franks' review of "Rent" than Frank Rich's review of a
war.
Times columnist Maureen Dowd, more macho than Rich, asked:
"Are we quagmiring ourselves again?" Apparently so. She cited
Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem's denial that we were getting bogged
down in Afghanistan as "a sure sign we're getting bogged
down."
In October 2001, on ABC News' "World News Tonight," anchor
Peter Jennings asked Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan: "Do you
believe that the United States is possibly facing a quagmire in
Afghanistan?"
The first time liberals had a kind word for the war in
Afghanistan was when they needed to pretend to support some war
in order to attack the war in Iraq with greater vigor. To
get them to support the Iraq war, all we have to do is attack
Iran. |