Senator Byrd has been in the news a lot lately for his fiery rhetoric against President Bush. He's become something of a hero to many leftists as the one Democrat willing to stand against President Bush. He's also popular with people on the right for his former (1940's) involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Brent Bozell doesn't mention that tidbit, but does call him a nut in an article today.
He then trots out this old chestnut, "When Clinton's opponents mobilized against him, when they circulated speeches on the Internet, Time called them "Clinton haters," remember? In fact, anti-Clinton politicians were maligned before they even got started."
Of course there is a difference. President Clinton's opponents were well-financed and absolutely dedicated to ending his presidency. Senator Byrd is a lone man, and, by Bozell's own argument, wields little power or influence within his party.
You also have the spectacle of Democrats giving the President everything he wants in order to invade Iraq whenever he wants, and Byrd being one of the few voices of dissent against this strategy. Can you imagine the Republicans giving Clinton that kind of authority? Neither can I.
Of course there is also the standard rhetoric about how Byrd has been proven wrong about Iraq. Our quick victory over Iraq proves that we can defeat a third world military, which apparently Senator Byrd contested. Of course the larger point that Senator Byrd made over and over again was that this attack would not make us safer and would in fact make the world more dangerous. It would give recruiting opportunities to al-Queda. It would increase tension between the United States and the Middle East. And the people of Iraq would end up more or less as they started. I hope that that last prediction does not end up being correct, but there's evidence to suggest that it will. At any rate, any of those predictions may still come true.
No comments:
Post a Comment