Ed Driscoll

FROM BOTTOM TO TOP: Numerous

FROM BOTTOM TO TOP: Numerous times on this site, we’ve commented that the protestors against the war in Iraq were essentially aiding Saddam Hussein, and hurting the Iraqi people, by wanting to keep him in power. (George Orwell made essentially the same argument 60 years ago, during World War II.)

Diana West writes that the same holds true for presidential candidates as well:

Soon, the burning question Democrats must answer will be not what they think is wrong with George W. Bush’s policy, but what they, as members of the antiwar elite, would do in his place.

This is a tough question. It forces members of the antiwar elite to admit they would have left Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime in place — not exactly a surefire policy to make either Iraq or the world safe for democracy. And now that most of the Democratic presidential candidates have come out against the president’s $87 billion funding request to stabilize and democratize the terror-torn, debt-laden country, they are taking themselves and their party to a new extreme. Indeed, being anti-Bush and antiwar, Democrats now pack a double political whammy that, in effect, bolsters Baathists and vitiates victory. And it leaves the American Left prone to increasingly weird contradictions.

No kidding!