Other Columns by Frank Salvato
Frank Salvato Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

And so it begins.

Just a week after making the move from "the party of no" to the majority party, Democratic leaders are backing away from the "undermine Bush at all costs" rhetoric they have been employing since November of 2000. In as much as their constant degradation of the Bush Administration was boorish, their constant debasing of the president's achievements now saddles them with the impossible task of living up to their own criticism.

The softening of the rhetoric started almost immediately as calls for President Bush's impeachment gave way to calls for a more amicable, bi-partisan work atmosphere in Washington. The venomous tirades of everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid to Charlie Rangel morphed from "Bush lied and people died," "Bush is inept," "Bush is stupid," and "Bush was behind September 11th" into a poor impression of Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?"

With the reality that they had captured control of the House and the Senate washing over them, the politically opportunistic headhunters of the Democratic leadership seem to have lost their taste for political flesh. Evidently, for the Progressive-Left, it is quite sobering to realize that when you win the responsibility of leadership you have to produce rather than simply and blindly criticize.

This couldn't have been more evident than with the front-page New York Times story that told of the impending doom that would besiege Iraq should the American military and coalition forces withdraw prematurely from that theater. What a difference a week makes.

A little over seven days ago the Times was quoting Cindy Sheehan on the need for immediate troop withdrawal as if she was an omnipotent being and John Murtha was the wise and seasoned war veteran that knew so much more than the tinhorn generals who had worked their ways up to the highest offices of the Pentagon. But seven days later, the New York Times, the paper of record for all that is anti-war and anti-Bush, was touting the very same position the Bush Administration has maintained from the very beginning; we cannot leave until the Iraqis can defend themselves.

General John Batiste, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, said that before the US could consider troop withdrawals, we should make efforts to lessen unemployment, secure the Iraqi borders, solicit more cooperation from tribal leaders, complete training of Iraq's security forces, and eliminate the militias. He called congressional proposals for early troop withdrawal, "terribly naïve."

Gee, where have I heard that before?

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), interviewed by FOX News's Martha MacCallum, commented that it was necessary to "listen to the generals on the ground" and to heed the opinion of Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates. Perhaps Senator Nelson's intellectual revelation was genuine (of course, one would have to question whether the good senator suffered from some sort of intellectual time delay for this to be true), but odds are that it had more to do with having heard President Bush express this policy ad nauseam over the years.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2