A hipocrisia política dos Democratas
John Ensign, Senador do Nevada escreveu hoje um artigo no Washington Post, apontando para a falta de coerência do Partido Democrata, comparando o actual momento com 1998, quando o Presidente Clinton atacou o Iraque.
The spectacle of senators and House members questioning the president's motives in the decision to use force in Iraq stirred outrage in Washington.
One senior senator declared that attacking the president while Americans are risking their lives in Iraq is "as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible." The secretary of state called such criticism "very unseemly and unbecoming to members of Congress." The vice president declared: "We need national resolve and unity, not weakness and division, when we're . . . engaged in an action against someone like Saddam Hussein."
The response of commentators in Washington was just as swift. The New York Times denounced the criticism as "a startling departure from the unity that usually accompanies military action." The Post declared that the critics "should know better. Would they prefer that the United States [have] respond[ed] once again with bluster, warnings and empty threats?" Columnist David Broder called the attacks "an extraordinary breach of bipartisanship." And E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote that the "response in some quarters . . . should chill us all . . . it has further aggravated the politics of revenge. Nothing matters more than bringing down a partisan enemy you hate. If you want to know how bad things have gotten [in Washington], consider this: Even Saddam Hussein doesn't unite us anymore."
If none of this sounds familiar to you, you're not alone. These statements were not made in defense of President Bush, who has come under a coordinated partisan assault from congressional Democrats. They were made five years ago, by Democrats, columnists and editorial writers outraged that Republicans would question President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq in the midst of impeachment proceedings in Congress. At the time, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a statement declaring: "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." Others in the House and Senate echoed his questioning of the president's timing and motivations.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman responded by declaring: "I must say I was disappointed by Sen. Lott's statement." Sen. John Kerry jumped to President Clinton's defense, declaring: "This is not contrived, and it has nothing to do with impeachment. I think Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt issued a joint statement declaring: "This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."
The fact is, the American people, the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors are all safer because President Bush made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. It's time for all the commentators and politicians who spoke up so passionately against those who attacked President Clinton to stand up and do the same for President Bush -- lest they be accused of hypocrisy. The writer, a
John Ensign, Senador do Nevada escreveu hoje um artigo no Washington Post, apontando para a falta de coerência do Partido Democrata, comparando o actual momento com 1998, quando o Presidente Clinton atacou o Iraque.
The spectacle of senators and House members questioning the president's motives in the decision to use force in Iraq stirred outrage in Washington.
One senior senator declared that attacking the president while Americans are risking their lives in Iraq is "as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible." The secretary of state called such criticism "very unseemly and unbecoming to members of Congress." The vice president declared: "We need national resolve and unity, not weakness and division, when we're . . . engaged in an action against someone like Saddam Hussein."
The response of commentators in Washington was just as swift. The New York Times denounced the criticism as "a startling departure from the unity that usually accompanies military action." The Post declared that the critics "should know better. Would they prefer that the United States [have] respond[ed] once again with bluster, warnings and empty threats?" Columnist David Broder called the attacks "an extraordinary breach of bipartisanship." And E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote that the "response in some quarters . . . should chill us all . . . it has further aggravated the politics of revenge. Nothing matters more than bringing down a partisan enemy you hate. If you want to know how bad things have gotten [in Washington], consider this: Even Saddam Hussein doesn't unite us anymore."
If none of this sounds familiar to you, you're not alone. These statements were not made in defense of President Bush, who has come under a coordinated partisan assault from congressional Democrats. They were made five years ago, by Democrats, columnists and editorial writers outraged that Republicans would question President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq in the midst of impeachment proceedings in Congress. At the time, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a statement declaring: "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." Others in the House and Senate echoed his questioning of the president's timing and motivations.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman responded by declaring: "I must say I was disappointed by Sen. Lott's statement." Sen. John Kerry jumped to President Clinton's defense, declaring: "This is not contrived, and it has nothing to do with impeachment. I think Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt issued a joint statement declaring: "This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."
The fact is, the American people, the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors are all safer because President Bush made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. It's time for all the commentators and politicians who spoke up so passionately against those who attacked President Clinton to stand up and do the same for President Bush -- lest they be accused of hypocrisy. The writer, a
0 Responses to “”
Enviar um comentário