What Would Liberals Do About Iraq?

I think it is fair to say the liberal Democrats and the anti-military crowd, with enthusiastic support from a large segment of the media, are concentrating all the firepower they can muster on George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Their current theme is that the President didn't really have courtroom-type proof that Saddam Hussein was really a bad guy who might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction.

They talk big, but let me tell you what I believe is going on: the liberals guessed wrong on Iraq. Every one of their arguments turned out to be bogus. They said we should not go in there, that it had nothing to do with terrorism and the Attack on America. Then when it became obvious public opinion in America favored our involvement in Iraq, the liberal line shifted to say we should not go unless all the countries in the United Nations agreed with our stand. Then at the end of the first week of the war, the liberal line was that things were going badly and the war would last years, and worse we would quit when we saw thousands of body bags.

The real situation is this: the liberal Democrats and their allies guessed wrong on Iraq, and now they are desperate to convince us their wrong stand was the right stand, in hopes we will vote them into office at the next election. I have one question for the liberals: if someone voted you in at the next election, what would you do? Would you put Saddam Hussein back in power, or let the United Nations run the show? Or both?

This is Gordon Sawyer, from a window on historic Green Street.