The look on Dick Durbin’s face said it all. Involuntary muscles
drew down the sides of his mouth as he attempted a forced smile but
succeeded in producing only a grimace. The occasion was the
appearance of the Democratic Senator on Fox News Sunday to discuss
the Iraq constitutional referendum. As always, the latest good news
from Iraq sits like a large lump in the throats of the president’s
enemies.
After pooh-poohing the historic voter turnout across Iraq,
Durbin — who has compared U.S. treatment of Gitmo prisoners with
that of the Nazis, the Soviet Gulag, and Pol Pot — was asked by
Chris Wallace what the Democrats’ plan for Iraq might be. His
answer?
“I can tell you what the plan is as far as I’m concerned. The
plan is to move Iraqis toward political stability and toward their
own safety and security, taken up on their own. Our position on the
Democratic side is to make sure that we hold this administration
accountable in ways it’s not been held before. We can do better in
Iraq. America can do better. And we need to have metrics of
accountability so we know exactly how many Iraqi soldiers are
prepared to defend their country.”
Accountability, not action. Remonstration without results. This
is the brand of political posturing that has resulted in the
Democrats’ continuing loss of power. It also smacks of the worst
kind of hypocrisy: the Vietnam-era tactic of using our military as
a political tool.
Durbin, who opposed President Bush on the Iraq War, said at the
time, “There are people in Washington who see war as a foreign
policy option. I think war should always be the last option.” But
he apparently disagreed with that notion four years earlier when he
addressed President Clinton’s aim to attack a weaker Iraq: “I call
on those who question the motives of the president and his national
security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a
united front to our enemies abroad.”
Durbin and his friends in the leftwing media have done great
harm to that united front with their continuous rehashing of the
Abu Ghraib brouhaha, persistent undermining of the president and
Defense Department, over-coverage of the tiny “peace” movement and
under-reporting of any good news of the war.
And when they do report on positive events in Iraq, the worst
possible scenario is a must. Space does not permit even a partial
list of negatively biased media stories from the area,
particularly those covering the new constitution. What should be
celebrated around the free world as almost a miracle wrought
through the blood and determination of the Coalition forces and the
brave Iraqi people, is instead disdained by those in the media.
The most prevalent claim is that the new constitution will be
“divisive” and someday lead to civil war. If so, so be it. Our own
constitution eventually led to a civil war and we were ultimately
the better for it. Of course, should the constitution divide the
terrorists from the minority of Iraqis that still support them,
that will no doubt go unreported.
The other beef is that the country will become an Islamic
dictatorship along the lines of Iran. Critics cite the following
from Article 2:
1st: Islam is the official religion of the state
and is a basic source of legislation.
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of
Islam.
This is absurd unless one ignores the next three sections and
nearly the entire document:
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the
principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic
freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd: This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of
the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for
all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious
practices.
In a document of over 10,000 words, the word “Islam” is
mentioned five times, while the dreaded “Sharia” appears once
(Article 90), in reference to experts in same that will sit on the
Supreme Court along with judges and other legal authorities.
Indeed, if the country were truly run under the strict rule of
Sharia, the document itself would be impossible since Sharia
forbids man-made law.
One of the things that is so misunderstood by the left, is that
our own country was established on the religious beliefs of its
founders, but also allowed for the free practice of others who
chose to live under that establishment. And up until the last
thirty years or so, one might imagine that most Americans would
have agreed that no law be passed that contradicts the Ten
Commandments.
Is the new Iraqi Constitution perfect? No, and neither was ours
apparently. That is why is has been amended twenty-seven times, not
counting those amendments imposed by our own Supreme Court; a
practice which may soon end, much to the dismay of the grumbling
left.
