There is nothing I hate more in politics than partisanship.
Those of you who read regularly are probably scratching your heads, for I am a strong conservative and express that weekly. But it isn't the same when it involves hypocrisy.
For months, Democrats have been touting their opposition to George W. Bush and the potential war in Iraq with every excuse they can come up with. It seems they scream "UN Resolution," "Unilateral war," or "Exit Strategy" on a daily basis.
Those shouts and cries are completely justified. These are issues that must be addressed before a conflict begins in Iraq. The problem is not the issues, but the timing of them. They had no such reservations when their party controlled 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In 1998 when President Bill Clinton wanted to deploy troops to Kosovo to stop the "ethnic cleansing" taking place in that country, there were no cries from Democrats.
Ted Kennedy was not out asking for an exit strategy. Troops were deployed with an open-ended timeline. To this day, troops are still in Kosovo acting as peace keepers. There still is no immediate plan to withdraw those troops. Where was Ted Kennedy in 1998?
For months, Democrats have been decrying the "unilateral" deployment in the gulf. They claim the only way to make this war legitimate is to use the UN Security Council and a resolution authorizing force. There is just one problem; there was no UN resolution in Kosovo. NATO was the sole body that authorized that operation. Barbra Boxer and Al Gore said not a word about unilateralism. Where was their cry for UN support then?
Another event that occurred during the presidency of Bill Clinton was the pull-out of UN weapons inspectors. There seemed to be universal support for use of force. Democrats voted for such a resolution, and Tom Daschle even said: "we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." But now, no such words of support come from Democrats. Why?
All of these are examples of the kind of blind partisanship I despise. If Kosovo was problem enough to allow President Clinton to deploy troops on his authority, why is Iraq different? If a coalition of nations operating outside UN authorization was good enough for Kosovo, why is that so "unilateral" now?
If Saddam was enough of a threat in 1998 to warrant military force, why is 2003 different?
Because the party in the White House has changed, now it is time to play politics.
Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle would have followed Bill Clinton into the hottest depths of hell because he was their president.
But now that a different party controls the deployment of the armed forces, we need UN Resolutions, congressional authorization, exit strategies, and the support of every nation on earth.
A threat is a threat. The president in the White House should not matter. If we as a nation were chosen by fate to protect this world from maniacal dictators like Slobodan Milosevic, then Saddam deserves the same treatment.
For Democrats, that isn't a reality. They would prefer to wait until their party controls the White House again; then they will support military action. Indeed, partisanship is at its worst.
Write to Russell at rlg@temporalfront.com
Visit http://www.temporalfront.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
