As usual, the Wall Street Journal is a bright light of reason amongst the liberal malaise of most mainstream papers. Today there is a magnificent editorial regarding the September 11th hearings and President Bush's policy of preemption (click here for the full editorial) The basic premise is that the Left has on the one hand criticized Bush for doing too much post 9/11 and not enough pre-9/11.
Can anyone make this a coherent argument? Bush should have put together the dots that no one else had in the 8 years under Clinton? This is the same Left that touted what a wonderful foreign policy leader Clinton was, now says that Bush, who had a much more aggressive anti-terror policy than Clinton, didn't do enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks? After Mogadishu, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, bin Laden and crew were emboldened and unpunished. America had shown herself unwilling to take the steps to track them down and was all too willing to run if a little bloodied.
Now the Left claims that anyone would have deposed the Taliban after 9/11. Really? The same leftist media types that were wringing their hands over going into Afghanistan now recognize the move as common sense?! What hypocrisy! Just imagine the outcry of "imperialism!" if Bush had acted preemptively against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Liberals were more concerned about the destruction of a couple of Buddha statues than they were about the terrorists camps.
The song from the left remains the same, cowardice and backbiting, Take no action but criticize those with the courage to do so. Attack Bush no matter the truth. Take the politics of lies, innuendo and personal attacks started by the Left in the Robert Bork hearings and lower them further. Win whatever the cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment