Counterbalance: Democrats Behaving Badly

Commentary by Darryl Wood, ^©2003 Wood Communications, LLC 

Why did some politicians choose to argue over whether America should be disarming Iraq after the war started?

The question is all the more relevant as I contemplate the pointless, futile, divisive dissent by 11 House Democrats who voted against a Senate resolution supporting our troops and president Bush's leadership as commander-in-chief. While the resolution is a symbolic gesture, it presents our lawmakers an important opportunity to demonstrate a level of unity and national resolve to end this war quickly with a coalition victory.

By panning a Senate resolution largely because it supports the president, these 11 House members appear to be indulging in another round of political self-interest. What do they hope to gain? Nothing is more important now than supporting our troops, and holding the administration accountable for the successful, expedient completion of its war plan.

While political dissent is our constitutional birthright, there is a time and a place for all things. Our constitutional heritage notwithstanding, THIS IS NOT the time to disagree with president Bush simply for disagreement's sake as is apparently the case regarding comments by Representative Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who was recently quoted by the LA Times as saying, "I, for one, will not be forced to praise the president's decisions, when what I want to do is praise the troops." Well, Mr. McDermott, it wasn't a problem for 392 of your congressional colleagues, who voted to support our president and the troops. If Mr. McDermott and his ten House colleagues really want to support the troops, they should focus on giving them 100-percent of their praise, while at the same time refraining from bad mouthing Mr. Bush. That can't be good for military moral or esprit de corp.

The other House Democrats knocking the president and potentially demoralizing our troops include: Representatives Maxine Waters, D-CA; Barbara Lee, D-CA; Mike Honda, D-CA; Pete Stark, D-CA; Diane Watson D-CA; John Conyers, D-MI; Charles B. Rangel, D-New York; Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia; Edolphus Towns, D-New York and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-Ohio. These folks should take a cue from one of their own, Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, who tempered his criticism of the president's decision by pointing out that the U-N Security Council is at least partially to blame for this conflict because they haven't enforced resolutions calling for Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison exemplifies the attitude Congress and all Americans should adopt at this point by proclaiming that "This war will be fought with the greatest resources, intelligence and manpower we can muster." What could be better than a quick, decisive U-S victory based on those objectives? With our family and friends in harm's way, many of whom will pay the ultimate price for regime change in Iraq, America should be able to count on Congress for political and moral leadership. Not partisanship. I refrain from accusing those eleven House Democrats of being unpatriotic. I hasten to add, however, that they aren't acting like good Americans.

All peace loving peoples would prefer a diplomatic way out. However, twelve years of U-N resolutions, mediation, weapons inspections, and economic sanctions didn't provide a non-violent path to peace with Iraq. What we couldn't accomplish through diplomacy is now being 'negotiated' on the battlefield. If war is politics and diplomacy by other means, then by all means our goal must be to prevail with unanimity, both in Baghdad and here at home.