On a related matter, Democrats, in order to bolster their credibility to attack President Bush on Iraq, pretended for years to be war hawks on Afghanistan. Iraq, they said, was an ill-conceived Bush-Cheney diversion from the war on terror. The real war, they said, was Afghanistan, where al-Qaida trained for its 9/11 attacks. But I could have sworn I just read this past week that Nancy Pelosi said, "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the Congress." I guess Dems were just kidding, then, when they bludgeoned President Bush for soft-pedaling "the good war," huh?
Then there's the little matter of Social Security, the subject that gave rise to Democrats' unceremoniously booing President Bush on the House floor. Though Democrats were so concerned about a looming Social Security crisis in 2000 that Bill Clinton and Al Gore demanded Social Security funds be placed in a "lockbox," they caught partisan amnesia when President Bush tried to reform it five years later.
The Chicago Tribune reported Feb. 3, 2005, that Democrats "plan to stand in the cold and excoriate the president, accusing him of dismantling a 70-year-old promise to senior citizens." The beloved Sen. Harry Reid went so far as to say: "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period." Do you suppose an apology will be forthcoming from Reid, though, now that government-revised estimates project the insolvency of Social Security to occur even sooner than expected?
How about the Democratic leaders who urged President Bush in January 2007 to reverse his "reckless" fiscal policies, a move that would include "difficult choices and shared sacrifices"? Where are these latter-day fiscal hawks now that President Obama is deliberately bleeding the national treasury and mortgaging our future earnings in pursuit of a fiscal recklessness so egregious that it represents a difference in kind, rather than degree, from President Bush's budgetary infractions?
In the meantime, could we please not lose sight of the fact that Wilson's claim was substantively true? President Obama has dissembled on many of his health care claims. Adding insult to injury, in that very speech before Congress, Obama was falsely accusing Republicans of lying -- an accusatory art Democrats perfected during the Bush years.
Indeed, if Democrats were to issue public apologies every time accepted moral standards demanded it, they wouldn't have time for governance, which would be a wonderful development. This latest witch hunt -- against Rep. Wilson, who has already apologized to the White House -- is strategically designed, along with their infernal playing of the race card against Obama's critics, to divert attention from and marginalize the spontaneous grass-roots tidal wave of opposition to Obama's socialist agenda.
So please, Democratic high officials, spare us the phony sanctimony in your transparent attempt to mask your own policy outrages, about which the public has been awakened and duly mobilized.