Which one is the real one?

You can’t help but notice the change in tone of politicians when the political winds begin to shift in Washington. It happens on both sides of the isle over a variety of issues. But, it is especially relevant to highlight this change in tone when the politicians in question are trying their darndest to undermine a WAR.

I submit to you Exhibit A. Al Gore. He has recently released a new book called "The Assault on Reason," where he criticizes Bush for starting the War in Iraq. In his book, he writes:

“History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy (Iraq)…as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack…then that means the president took us to war when he didn't have to and that over 3,000 American service members have been killed…unnecessarily.”

It’s really nothing out of the ordinary. This is the same line that the Left has been repeating for 4 years. But, juxtapose that statement with this one:

“As long as Saddam stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the Middle East. We have made clear it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

Who said this? It was Al Gore, when he was campaigning for the Presidency in 2000. He changed his tune, as soon as he saw that it was politically viable to do so.

Now, I present Exhibit B. John Edwards. He has said before that he thinks the War on Terror doesn’t exist. He believes that it is propaganda piece constructed by the Bush Administration. Today, he repeated that notion, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. A report in USA Today reads:

“Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a ‘global war on terror,’ calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a ‘bumper sticker’ slogan President George W. Bush has used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad to the invasion of Iraq.

‘We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,’ Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. ‘By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.’

So, John Edwards is opposed to the idea of a Global War on Terror, right? Then, explain this.

That link will take you to a video of John Edwards on Bill O’Reilly’s show in 2001. There is no mistaking what he said in the clip:

O’REILLY: When this war widens, and it will…when Saddam Hussein comes into play, and maybe Libya, and maybe Syria, and maybe Sudan, and maybe even Iran…when all these come into play, are we going to as united as we are now?

EDWARDS: Oh, I think we will be.

O’REILLY: Really?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I think, I think…

O’REILLY: You guys aren’t going to give Bush a hard time?

EDWARDS: I think that we will be united with the President throughout this War on Terrorism.

Granted, this clip has been edited. I’m sure that this statement was taken completely out of context. I’m sure that if you watch the whole clip, you will hear the following:

EDWARDS: I think that we will be united with the President throughout this War on Terrorism. We will be united as long as it is politically advantageous for us. When we start looking at polls, and Bush’s approval rating begins to sag, and public support for the war begins to slide, then all bets are off. I mean, come on. We have to think about our reelection, right? So, we’ll probably start calling Bush a liar, a traitor, a Nazi…you know, the usual comments you hear from us.

And, at that point, we’ll call for Bush’s impeachment for lying us into War, while at the same time we’ll try to hide the fact that conversations like this even took place. We’ll ignore the fact that we voted to send our troops to war, and we’ll probably try to cut off their funding. If that’s not enough to undermine the war effort, some of my Democratic colleagues will also publicly announce that our troops have lost the war, and I will deny that we are even engaged in a War! From there, who knows how far we will go to win political points.

Other than that, we will remain united with the president throughout this War on Terrorism.

I can imagine that the real conversation went something like that. After all, it is the reality of the situation.

Which one is the real one?


Post a Comment

<< Home