The Shamelessness of the Democrats

I always thought Tom Daschle was a laughable character, always looking befuddled in his pink ties and perennial expression of impotent concern. To me, he was clueless, not despicable. Now I'm not so sure. Listening to him stand before the Senate and say that Iraq should pay for its reconstruction out of its own oil revenues actually made me angry. Is he serious?


Let us catalog the reasons why this is an infuriatingly dumb idea:




1) We promised the Iraqis that their oil revenues would be used for their benefit. We've said it again and again, despite all the accusations that this is an imperialist venture to grab the oil supplies of a Middle Eastern nation. Would Daschle et al have us go back on our word? What purpose could that serve?


2) Everything we've done in Iraq thus far, if it hasn't completely endeared us to the Iraqi people, had demonstrated that we aren't barbarian franj coming to enslave them. We said we'd get rid of Saddam; we did. We said we'd get the place back up and running; we largely have. We said we'd set up a democratic government, we're delivering. Presenting them with a bill for our services is going to undo what goodwill we've managed to create in this crucial section of the Arab world. Again, what for?


3) Need we remind Daschle that there are still Baathists and terrorists in-country who are not happy with the way the war went? He may have noticed the American soldiers dying and the mosques and embassies being targeted. Saddling the fledgling Iraqi republic with war debt is all the political capital those monsters need to start talking to the people. Can you say "Versailles Treaty?" Knew you could.




And would someone explain what happened to the Democratic concern for the poor benighted Third-Worlders? Whence the call to seek out the "root causes" of terrorism in the oppression of distant peoples? Is Daschle really concerned with a lousy $87 billion (chump change next to what prescription drugs are going to cost us) over the fate of an entire nation?


I know, I'm getting myself all worked up over what is easily explainable. Daschle doesn't have to be, you know, consistent with his arguments, or concerned with the long-term fallout of his arguments. He's just a senator; why should he worry about some silly war on terrorism when there's a Big Bad Bush Beast to tear down? I should be more charitable to the man. He's only following the advice of the great ur-liberal, Walt Whitman, who wrote that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," an argument which was and is the excuse for lazy minds.