…despite wishes of the contrary from the Left.

Last night George W. Bush gave one of his best, and most moving, speeches in his political career. He called Congress to task to start acting and stop stalling. He put the burden on Congress to do something meaningful in life, not just pander and collect taxpayer money. The Democrats were quick to accuse, blame and point out problems with the agenda… but the American people, as evidenced in the last 3 elections, have grown tired of inaction and endless rhetoric, and desire real action.

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ response showed once again how out of touch they are with reality.

“We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force…”

Viewed as an occupying force? Perhaps by the insurgents, but do the Democrats really want to be viewed as taking military strategy from terrorists? Maybe the DNC ought to talk to some actual Iraqi citizens before substituting their own warped view of the world for theirs:

“One of Iraq s leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country: We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers.”

Look at Pelosi’s statement above with the very next words she uttered… side by side…

“We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely … Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos.”

Brilliant policy. Proclaim that we can’t stay forever and we shouldn’t leave too quickly. Beautiful. I’m sure such a “clear” policy would make the Iraqis who wake up each morning risking death for a blue finger feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Then Harry Reid, in fine “let’s complain but offer no solutions of our own” Democrat fashion offered this little nugget:

“Bush’s Social Security plans sound more like “Social Security roulette” than reform. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn’t mean taking Social Security’s guarantee and gambling with it. And that’s coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas.”

That little gem may have gone over well at the cocktail party with a few snorts and a cackle, but it’s patently false and once again preys on misinformation to scare people into opposing a valid solution. Of course, the alternative is to actually propose a solution… so I expect the Democrats to just keep tossing one-liner grenades instead of actually acting. Sayin’ ain’t doin’, folks.

Can the Democrats show what they mean by saying Bush will take Social Security’s guarantee and gamble with it? They point to the stock market and the recent downturns to make their point. They parade folks who lost everything in Enron (hint: diversification is a pretty nifty concept, people) and try to scare people into thinking the Bush proposal will have people tossing retirement into speculative commodities and losing it all. They try to paint a picture that a growth of 2% (which is severely less than inflation) is somehow a positive.

Even Factcheck.org shows the falsity of these claims. Bush makes real proposals, opponents use misleading propaganda. Sure some disagree with the Bush administration on the urgency of the problem, but those same people seem to be saying, “hey, it won’t go bankrupt in our generation, so don’t touch it.” Such an ironic position, coming from people who just last year made ads claiming the deficits were going to require our children to get jobs before they become teenagers. I guess the urgency just depends on what side of the aisle you sit.

Basically, it boils down to this. If you’re bold enough to propose substantive change in Washington, be prepared for politicians who’ve built careers on pandering and inaction to oppose you every step of the way. To those folks, change is not good. Change may mean they lose the next election (ask Daschle). Change may mean the promises they make but never intend to keep will be called to account. Bush offers plans. Bush offers solutions. Bush may not have all the answers, but at least he’s trying.

In the end, “the Democrats were volunteering few detailed alternatives to Bush proposals.” And that, my friends is the difference. Plain and simple.

It appears Rush gave his take on Brown’s column yesterday, though it seems even the interpretation of Rush’s critique is subject to debate. However, I’m still impressed with Brown’s attempt to open the door on his own thought process and reject the notion that every thought must be sanctioned by the party for which you vote. (Look back through my site, you’ll see I differ from the RNC on things like education and guns)

Here’s an excerpt from Brown’s column today…

I left out some important points such as the faulty premise on which the war was sold — the old weapons of mass destruction. This is no time for further waffling, however, so I stand behind what I wrote, the gist of which, if you’re wondering what the fuss is about, was that the sight of Iraqis embracing their right to vote forced me to re-examine my views on the war and to seriously consider the possibility that President Bush will succeed with his Iraq strategy and was right to take us to war.

I think this paragraph sums up the rationale on both side of the argument. As “Forrest” remarked in the comments to yesterday’s post, the premise of WMD is proving to have been faulty. However, unlike “Forrest” and others walking in lockstep with the Left, Brown recognizes that going to war may (I argue “will be”) ultimately justified on the grounds that a free Iraq will have positive affects on the people, the country, the region and ultimately, the world. It was a war launched in the shadows of a 9/11 world. Sure, WMDs are a threat, but so is a murderous tyrant who is scheming with insiders at the U.N. (and so-called “allies) to erode sanctions so he can restore his WMD programs to full capacity and eventually use those weapons to destabilize the region and kill thousands or millions.

If you doubt that the war in Iraq is helping rid the world of potential terror, just remember that Qaddafi handed over his nuclear arsenal shortly after the fall of Baghdad.

Those who refuse to see the tangential benefits of the war in Iraq and those who will refuse to accept anything beyond “he lied” will never fully understand that there was more justification for the war than the administration could ever fully paint during the “sales process” because there are just too many who would either not understand or refuse to accept the fact that a democracy in place of a dictatorship can lead to more than just the immediate quantifiable benefits.