Case in point: Operation Iraqi Freedom (sic) has provoked far more protest/outrage than 78 days of U.S./NATO bombing over Yugoslavia in 1999 ever did. Where were all the Hitler moustaches and facile Nazi analogies when it was Bill Clinton ordering the use of cruise missiles and depleted uranium in the name of humanitarianism (sic)?
Meanwhile, Democratic candidates suddenly can't stop talking about Iraq. "Iraq and foreign policy are to a large extent albatrosses around the Republicans' neck this year," New York Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat) explains. "And they don't know what to do about it."
So, dig this: You're a Democrat in the Senate or the House. You've assured your constituents that you are not soft on terror. You've supported the invasion of Iraq and voted in favor of all subsequent funding bills. You've helped spread wild theories about WMD and hinted at a possible connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. You've passionately and unconditionally pronounced your support for the troops, choosing to view the massacres, rapes, and torture as "anomalies." Most recently, You've voted for the draconian Military Commissions Act. Now, with the mid-term elections just weeks away, you find it politically expedient to position yourself as anti-war (sic)...and, of course, the public is buying it like it was a new iPod. A New York Times/CBS News Poll taken in early October found that two-thirds of respondents "disapproved of Mr. Bush's handling of the war and 66 percent said the war was going somewhat or very badly." In addition, according to the Times, "45 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decision on Iraq, compared with 34 percent of Republicans."
While the Democrats pretend to be Cindy Sheehan for a month, their rivals, well, here's Mark Campbell again: "Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page."
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.