In December 2004, the Associated Press and other news services reported on a warning directed at the Democrat Party from the far-Left MoveOn.org PAC website. In what MoveOn called the Democrat �professional election losers�, it read: �In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our party. We bought it�we own it�and we're going to take it back!� 

Whew!  That pretty much says it all.  And from Democrat leaders� before and after statements regarding the Iraq war�MoveOn.org was and is right.  It does own the New Democrat Party.  It and the other heavily-contributing leftist organizations now, unequivocally, have their political power base�contained within the Democrat Party.  Additionally, MoveOn.org did not like former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe (it said he �coddled� the same corporate donors as did the Republicans) but, it loved Howard Dean.  So, McAuliffe was out as DNC Chair and Howie was in.  That�s clout, my friends.

Then there was the MoveOn.org directive of �change your message about the war, now!�  So, the Democrat leaders, like all good little Kool-Aid drinking followers of the Master�s purse, did just that.  For those to the Left or very-left-of-center, who still maintain that their Democrat leaders didn�t have the same information as did President Bush (IE daily presidential briefings) and couldn�t make �informed decisions� to remove Saddam Hussein from power, please allow me to enlighten you:

1. The investigative information contained in the Silverman-Robb report advised that the Presidential daily briefings were even more alarming than were President Bush�s statements about Hussein.
2. If members of the US Senate or House of Representatives desired more information, prior to casting their votes, there was and is a process and a remedy. They could have made requests from the leaders of either the Senate or House Intel Committee�to request more data from the CIA. This is a practice that is commonplace.  That�s one reason Intel Committees exist.

The Democrat leaders� comments made before going to war to liberate the Iraqi people have been widely-published.  But, as all too many liberals and leftists seem to have a less-than-satisfactory memory I believe they bear repeating.  Let�s take a look, shall we?

Former President Clinton said 11 February 1998:  �Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily.�  Now, he says that President Bush made the wrong decision to go to war with Iraq.  Note:  Hmmm.  If Clinton or any other Democrat president had made the decision to go to war, the Democrats and the press would be applauding them.  But, we already knew that.

On 16 December 1998, Al Gore stated strongly:  �If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons�how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons!�  Now, however, Apoplectic Al still continues to deliver his infamous diatribe about President Bush removing Hussein from power:  �He betrayed this country�he played on our fears!�  Again�unless you�re a Democrat the Left won�t allow you to go to war; no matter the dangers of not doing so.

Joining the �we-love-everything-Clinton-says-and-does� fray was Rep. Nancy Pelosi.  She spoke the same day as Al, when she said:  �Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.�  Of course, now that a Republican is POTUS, the �threat� in Iraq didn�t really exist, Bush lied about WMDs and blah, blah, blah.  Just ask her.  She�ll tell you.

Even Sen. Ted �the swimmer� Kennedy said in September 2002:  �There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed!�  Now, Kennedy compares Iraq to Viet Nam.  Virtually all other Democrat leaders who initially supported the war are now against it.  Why?  It�s the Money, stupid!  Again, intelligent people already know that�s the Dem agenda.

MoveOn.org has threatened, more than once or twice, to remove their funding unless Democrat leaders tow the anti-Iraq-war and surrender line.  So, as the majority of Democrats have no moral compass anyway, they have acquiesced.  Money talks to Democrats, louder than anything else.  What do ethics matter if you can�t buy that new yacht you�ve been salivating over?  Besides, with enough money, Democrat leaders can find a safe hiding-place when al-Qaeda hits the US again.  And what about the rest of us? To the Dem leaders it�s every man, woman and child for himself or herself. The Democrat leaders will already be outta� here.

But, one might logically ask, �What then does freedom mean to the Democrats?� My own opinion about the current New Leftist Democrat leaders� consideration of freedom (with apologies to Kris Kristofferson) is the following: �If we don�t have boatloads of cash and don�t regain our power, freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.�

Copyright by Sher Zieve

Email Comments