Most Democrats would have to take a back seat to yours truly when it came to opposing the Iraq War. I disagreed with the decision to intervene – and still do, in spite of the fact that we dumped a world-class tyrant in the process – for a host of reasons. But I’m a columnist and talk-show maven – not a politician. I don’t have to worry about running for office in ’04, ’08 or ‘0-anytime. In short, talking heads like me can afford to be principled.
On my shoulders do not rest questions of even greater importance – universal health care, decent housing, living wages, decent working conditions, in sum, all the things that really distinguish Democrats from Republicans and require but one small detail for their fulfillment – taking office. Right now, in case you haven’t noticed, the Democrats control nada – not the House, not the Senate, not the White House and not the Supreme Court.
And it’s in the interests of these higher goals of economic and social justice that prompts me to urge my fellow Democrats to exercise caution before putting too many of their political eggs in the Bush’s now infamous 16-word insertion – What shall I call it? Lie? Bad information? Faulty intelligence? – in his State of the Union speech. First, the president’s words as spoken in his January 2003 State of the Union Address:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Talk about spin! This utterance by President Bush, while destined to take its place beside his predecessor’s contribution to post-modern linguistics (“It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”) remains a sly, sneaky way of slipping into the record facts which clearly, nobody in the administration or our intelligence services had much confidence in. While Bush’s statement in context and subtext is about as misleading as it gets, it is not literally a “lie.” It’s was a slimy piece of propaganda, yes, but a literal lie, no.
What’s more is that another man, one who, among the American people, actually outpolls President Bush in the “Most Admired” category, continues to vouch for the accuracy of the statement. That man is Tony Blair, and while it’s true that his own goose is slowly cooking back in the Mother Country, over here, he’s still a Winston Churchill Mini-Me.
The question I’m raising is: How much mileage is there in this issue for my fellow Democrats? And, since life and politics are both double-edged swords, how many negatives are in it for Democrats?
The main reason why this issue is front and center today isn’t about foreign policy. It’s about the Democratic primary. Former Vermont governor, dark-horse candidate Howard Dean is killing the competition in fund raising, and he did it largely by coming out early, often and boldly in opposing the Iraq War. All of the other candidates have since been playing catch-up on the issue. Hence, it’s news.
But is it wise? Why not ask Tom Daschle, the former majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He also played the anti-anti-terrorism issue to the hilt, and many believe that his perceived weakness on the issue cost his party control of the Senate. And if you have any doubts about that, just ask the former Sen. Max Clelland from Georgia. He was a decorated Vietnam War vet who was actually defeated because his voters thought him and his party were too soft on national security issues.
Here’s the bottom line: By continuing to milk anti-war sentiment post-war, the Democrats continue to reinforce the idea that they are the soft party, the party that cannot protect this country against its very real enemies. It’s my opinion that the Democrats should move on – on to where their greatest strengths are.
In a country in which 40 million Americans have zip for health insurance; where unemployment is over 6 percent and the economy continues marshmallow soft, the Dems need to keep hitting away at the issues where poll after poll has them in the strongest position – the domestic economy. And there is no shortage of issues there.
Bush cons a tax cut through the Congress that enriches the rich, the deficit swells to proportions that make California’s Gray Davis look like a piker, and if anybody wants to talk about Bush’s lack of credibility, forget about Iraq (where the public supports him) and think about all the children he’s left behind in spite of his “No Child Left Behind” pledge. If the Democrats want to talk military, here’s something military they need to learn first: Go into emptiness, strike voids, bypass what he defends, hit him where he does not expect you.
This was said centuries ago by the great Chinese strategist Ts’ao Ts’ao. And today, the Republicans aren’t where they always aren’t – on child care, job security, working conditions, decent wages and health insurance.
I say, go get ’em, Democrats!
