As Democratic presidential hopefuls escalate their criticism of President Bush's policy on Iraq, we should recognize the constant theme amid their calamitous clamor: obstructionism in the War on Terror.
No sooner had they joined with the president in resolving to go after terrorist targets and the corrupt Taliban government in Afghanistan did they begin their handwringing at the prospect that we were about to become bogged down in a quagmire. "We haven't put enough troops on the ground." "We haven't properly trained the Afghan rebels." "We haven't found Osama."
Meanwhile, President Bush calmly and deliberately stayed the course, exercising presidential leadership and patient maturity.
As President Bush attempted to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the Gulf War resolutions and cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, liberals found more to criticize in President Bush than in Saddam Hussein. They resisted Bush's plan to attack Iraq until it was time for a vote, then reluctantly relented.
But as Bush prepared for war, they did their best to dissuade him from acting, saying that we needed the approval of the United Nations and certain appeasement-oriented countries to initiate the attack. To them, the inexcusable failure of the U.N. and other nations to bring Saddam to justice was reason to condemn President Bush, not the U.N. and those other nations.
On the verge of our attack against Iraq, Democrats castigated Bush again for failing to convince the inconvincible nations to join the coalition. The practical effect of their position would have been to place our foreign policy decisions solely in the hands of an anti-American United Nations and a handful of snooty, feckless European nations as in touch with reality as John Hinckley Jr.
When the war began, they started second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking our military strategy and trying to play up a conflict between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other administration officials. Out came their prophecies of doom, from mocking our "shock and awe" campaign, to saying insufficient troops were on the ground, to denouncing the air assault as too short lived and the advance to Baghdad as too quick.
They were consistently and demonstrably wrong. Yet now, they expect all of us to listen to their expertise? I don't think so.
Seriously, folks, we need to share a sober moment here. Have we forgotten what this war is all about? We are in a war for the very survival of our free society, living reasonably free of the fear of instant calamity at any time in any location.