Tough Guys

“I’m so disappointed in the President. If I was face to face with Putin, I would have torn him an expansive auxiliary rectum. Yessiree, Bob. You can count it.”

~ Generic Feckless Progressive (D-Fantasy Land), Photo Op Address to CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times (July 17, 2018)

If the current Democrat rhetoric regarding Russia sounds familiar, that’s because it is. People under 30 aren’t very likely to remember because they were still playing with crayons in elementary school, worried about Mom getting them the junior high soccer game on time or studying for their driver’s license. But we heard the same “tough guy” rhetoric in the run up to the war in Iraq. Some examples:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” ~ President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” ~ President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“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.” ~ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” ~ Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002

“While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein’s ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography – it can be accomplished in a number of different ways – which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive.” ~ Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” ~ Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002

And we all know how quickly the Democrats turned against the Iraq War when President Bush went to war due to Saddam’s constant violations of UN Resolution 1441.

Just in case you are curious, the vote tallies for “Bush’s War” were as follows: October 2002 – HJRes 114, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed the House 296 to 133 and the Senate 77 to 23. All of this was after 9/11 and the Iraq vote was after 16 toothless UN resolutions over 22 years finally led to Resolution 1441(unanimously passed by the UN Security Council). 1441 was the international legal basis for the war…but the assumption with “progressives” was that nobody would ever actually enforce it – until President Bush led a coalition that did.

There was also a time when Democrats thought Afghanistan was a “good war” – at least until they saw it as a wedge against Bush and Republicans. It is hard to argue that they weren’t all in and then changed like the kid who killed his parents and then claimed leniency because he was an orphan. By the way, the vote on the Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Afghanistan was 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate.

So, history proves that Democrats are the masters of the hypothetical. Always tough when they think there is no chance of having to prove how tough they really are. They know three things 1) the “Russian interference” changed nothing and amounted to less than the “influence” exerted by Planned Parenthood or #blacklivesmatter, 2) Russia has as many nukes as we do and 3) they know there is zero chance we are going to go to war with Russia over what amounted to an ad campaign and the stupidity of John Podesta.

That’s why the current “tough guy” talk is simply unbelievable.

There is no doubt that Trump did appear off his game in Helsinki – but diplomacy is played out over the long term, success is measured in evolutionary change, not what happened today. It must be viewed in its totality (that is why history already reveals that the foreign policy Cerberus of Obama, Hillary and Kerry can now be judged as an abject failure).

As usual, life is always explained by a Monty Python sketch. The truth is that while we don’t yet know what the outcome of Trump’s engagement with Putin will spawn, we do know the history of Democrat “tough talk”. Brave Sir Robin will always run away.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.