David Broder gets ridiculous in his op-ed piece in today's Post:

When the Democracy Corps team asked whether voters in those three states wanted a Democratic nominee "who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning" or one "who supported military action against Saddam Hussein but was critical of Bush for failing to win international support for the war," voters in all three states chose the second alternative. Dean's position was preferred by only 35 percent of the likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary -- fewer than supported it in Iowa or South Carolina -- while 58 percent chose the alternative.

The myth behind this poll is that there is absolutely no practical difference between these two positions; the first is equal to the second. France (and Germany) would never have supported military action against its client-state, Saddam's Iraq. Chirac explicitly said so in February, sticking a knife into Colin Powell's back by reneging on a promise given him when the French induced the US to back one more Security Council resolution calling for compliance with the previous 16. Since France holds veto power in the Security Council, the US could not possibly get its endorsement. Bush did line up a number of nations, including several who contributed troops, and especially Britain, who contributed a major military presence and partnered in the Coalition of the Willing.

What this poll tells us is that 93% of Democrats favor handing over our foreign policy, security, and sovereignty to France, Germany, and Russia, and that Democratic Presidential candidates (with the exception of Joe Lieberman) are tripping over themselves to deliver just that. As long as that remains the case, don't expect to see Bush out of a job in 2005.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is