A casual glance at recent newspaper headlines involving Democrats attacking President Bush for every imaginable reason shows how thirsty Democrats are to regain power. It's their prerogative to serve as watchdogs, but much of their criticism is so transparently contrived that it says more about them than it does the president.
Let's take a look at stories from last week alone.
<ul><li>"Democrats Blame Bush for Energy Costs." Senate Democrats have gone to the trouble of using their time and our resources to conduct a study to prove that Bush's decision to boost the federal emergency oil stockpile caused oil stocks to plummet and energy prices to rise. Notice that the purpose of the study was not to analyze economic data for future use but to discredit Bush. Given what is immediately facing this nation, do you think their time might have been more constructively spent?
<li> "Democrats Say Bush Failing on North Korea." Democratic foreign policy experts -- an oxymoron if there ever was one -- said, for the umpteenth time, that North Korea posed a far graver threat than Iraq and "must be dealt with immediately to keep it from becoming a hostile nuclear power." I hate to break it to Democrats, but North Korea is already a hostile nuclear power. They have some gall even to raise this issue, since it's a mess they largely created through endless appeasement and a phony "Agreed Framework." And they're advocating that we do it all over again with Iraq. Their formula is "walk softly, talk even more softly, and carry no stick. Trust dictators, not your own common sense." It's also noteworthy that Democrats don't give any specifics as to what action should be taken against North Korea. Just more talk to detract from the Iraqi mission. They're in their destructive mode -- criticizing Bush without offering feasible alternative solutions.
<li>"Senate Democrats Question Bush War Plans." Now that's a new one! But again, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Their constant refrain essentially is "We agree that Saddam is evil (though we reserve our right to lampoon Bush for simplistically recognizing the very existence of evil), but war is unthinkable when you can disarm him by talking him to death." Their motto should be "Twelve more years." They are saying we need to work with Saddam just long enough to let him acquire nukes like North Korea. While they would have us believe they favor rigorous inspections, they don't explain their utter indifference to the inspections process during those years that Clinton allowed Saddam to make a mockery of the United Nations with impunity.
<li>"Desperate Democrats Attack War on Terrorism." This article details how Democrats have pretended to support President Bush in the War on Terrorism while attacking him on everything else, but now they're even openly questioning the war effort. With the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed they have egg on their faces. But they still won't concede that we can fight Al Qaeda and Iraq simultaneously.
<li>"Democrats Slam Bush Foreign Policy." This one reiterates the familiar charge that Bush is a unilateralist and hasn't deferred enough to the United Nations and the rest of our good buddies in Germany and France.
<li>"Democrats Decry Bush on Public Housing." He isn't doing enough.
<li>"Democrats Attack Bush Prescription Drug Proposal." His plan is of "very, very marginal value."
<li>"Democrats Count on Job Drought to fight 'The Perfect Storm.'" This reveals the novel Democratic strategy to counter Bush's war popularity by slamming him on the economy.
<li>"Senate Democrats Question Bush War Plans." They condemn Bush for not having been clairvoyant as to the precise cost and duration of the war.
<li>"Three Democrats Rip Into Bush." Just three? Not to worry. There were only three Democratic presidential candidates there. One of them, Howard Dean, said, "Our party has supported this president too much."
<li>"Democrats Attack Bush for Poverty Rise." Self-explanatory.
<li>"Senate Democrats: Filibusters Are No Longer Just For the Floor." Details the Senate Democrats' despicable actions in making the eminently qualified Miguel Estrada the first federal court of appeals nominee to face a real filibuster in the history of America.
</ul>These relentless assaults against President Bush reveal an unparalleled obstructionism aimed at hurting him politically, rather than advancing the best interests of the country. This strategy is so selfish, so unseemly and so obviously partisan it's difficult to imagine that it won't backfire. We'll know soon enough.