For years, liberals have hectored President Bush for not committing enough troops to Iraq.  Now, peanut-gallery liberals pivot 180 degrees and browbeat him for proposing precisely that.  Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't: Troop Proposal Reveals Liberals' Latest Hypocrisy

For years, liberals have hectored President Bush for not committing enough troops to Iraq.  Now, peanut-gallery liberals pivot 180 degrees and browbeat him for proposing precisely that. 

Appearing May 30, 2004 on NBC's "Meet the Press," for instance, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flatly and repeatedly told Tim Russert that "we need more troops on the ground." 

In fact, Speaker Pelosi suggested that we commit 300,000 troops (President Bush's current proposal would raise the level to merely 160,000).  Asked to clarify, Ms. Pelosi confirmed that position: 

Tim Russert (NBC News):  So you would put more American troops on the ground? 

Representative Pelosi:  What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground...  We have to solidify, we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq...  And we need to get more troops on the ground. 

Today, however, in the name of political gamesmanship, Speaker Pelosi predictably sings a different tune. 

This isn't the first time, of course, that the leftist double-standard has reared its ugly head.  Rather, it follows a longstanding pattern. 

For instance, remember Oregon Senator Robert Packwood?  He was the Republican (note the party affiliation) forced to resign following accusations of sexual misconduct while in office.  Among other things, his diary revealed a consensual sexual encounter in his office.  Curiously, the media refrained from labeling this "just about sex." 

Instead, liberals followed the National Organization for Women's (NOW's) lead and clamored for his censure, removal, and punishment.  Back then, NOW's Patricia Ireland cited the parade of women who alleged sexual harassment against Senator Packwood, and demanded action: 

"At least 29 women, both employees and campaign workers, have come forward to accuse Senator Bob Packwood (R-Oregon) of sexual harassment, and in some cases, sexual assault.  Although the story did not break until after he was narrowly re-elected in November 1992, NOW urges the Senate Ethics Committee not to officially seat Packwood until the charges have been investigated and resolved.  At NOW's request, it was announced by the Senate leadership that all of the Senators were being seated 'conditionally.'" 

NOW further demanded Senator Packwood's resignation "or, barring that, for a speedy investigation and public hearings ... that will inspire him to step down."  Ms. Ireland continued, "most of all, Packwood himself should get packing."  NOW also invited Gena Hutton, one of Senator Packwood's accusers, to speak at its rally.  According to NOW's press release, "Ireland has helped organize fundraisers to support the Packwood accusers." 

Liberals were no less rabid in targeting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and celebrating his accuser.  Despite the fact that only one person with questionable motives leveled accusations against him, without any supporting evidence or allegations of physical misconduct of any sort, liberals' assault was relentless. 

Fast forward to President Clinton's familiar tenure.  As was the case with Senator Packwood, multiple women accused President Clinton of sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape.  This time around, however, liberals (including NOW's Ms. Ireland) shamelessly applied their famed double-standard in fiercely combating any investigation or punishment for his obstruction of justice and admitted misconduct. 

Of course, this is hardly an isolated example of liberals' hypocrisy and cynicism.  Remember the 1980s, during which President Reagan's leadership resuscitated our lethargic economy, rebuilt our military, and won the Cold War? 

Dismissive liberals simply labeled it the "Decade of Greed." 

Ten years later, with a Democrat in the White House, liberals painted a very different picture.  Amidst a stock bubble and increasing inequality, liberals trumpeted their newfound admiration for economic growth and skyrocketing wealth.  President Clinton even said in his State of the Union address that "my fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been."  Nary a word from liberals regarding income inequality, homelessness or stock options at that time. 

With President Bush in office, of course, liberals' tone has again taken a U-turn.  Since President Bush's tax cuts, the amount of growth enjoyed by the American economy is as large as the entire size of the Chinese economy.  Yes, you read that correctly – the entire Chinese economy.  During that period, our economy has added over 7 million jobs, workers' wages are growing dramatically, the deficit is disappearing, unemployment is lower than the 1990s average rate and we continue to lead the world's economies. 

Despite today's remarkable economic health, however, liberals speak only of "two Americas" and red-herring claims of "income inequality."  During the 1990s tech bubble, stock options and CEO superstars were rightfully celebrated.  With President Bush in office, however, stock options are taboo and CEOs are presumed criminals. 

The mainstream media, of course, is all too happy to perpetuate this double standard, as highlighted by former CBS reporter Bernie Goldberg's "Bias."  Keep this hypocrisy in mind as liberals lambaste President Bush's proposal to win the war in Iraq. 

January 11, 2007
[About CFIF]  [Freedom Line]  [Legal Issues]  [Legislative Issues]  [We The People]  [Donate]  [Home]  [Search]  [Site Map]
� 2000 Center For Individual Freedom, All Rights Reserved. CFIF Privacy Statement
Designed by Wordmarque Design Associates
Conservative NewsConservative editorial humorPolitical cartoons Conservative Commentary Conservative Issues Conservative Editorial Conservative Issues Conservative Political News Conservative Issues Conservative Newsletter Conservative Internships Conservative Internet Privacy Policy How To Disable Cookies On The Internet