The old adage, “”When your opponents are destroying themselves, let them,”” has a lot to do with the current debate over whether to go into Iraq.

The ones destroying themselves this time around are congressional Democrats. Why? They supported Bill Clinton four years ago when talk of war with Iraq was brewing, but not today. With time having passed and political tensions becoming much more strained, wouldn’t Saddam Hussein be even more of a threat to the free world? If you ask them — no.

All this talk of war has pacifists coming out of the woodwork in opposition to the current administration, but President George W. Bush is not wavering. He’s following a moral compass of absolutism, wanting to do what is right, not what’s political. The pacifists are clamoring for more time, but how much more time do they think we can afford to give? Are they blatantly ignoring the fact that Hussein has already had over 10 years to get his act together?

One man who’s certainly not playing politics is Bush. The core premise of his foreign policy is that evil must be stopped. Hussein embodies evil; he’s a horrid dictator who has waged war against his own people. (Remember the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south?)

To understand the moral clarity of Bush, we must look at the moral obscurity of the opposition. In September, former President Clinton explained his current position on Iraq:

“”Saddam Hussein didn’t kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden did. And as far as we know, he’s still alive. We might do more good for America’s security in the short run and at a far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flush out the entire network and to find him. … We’re already kind of changing the subject here, looking at Saddam Hussein, who’s not going anywhere.””

Everyone’s entitled to his opinion, but what happens when someone grossly contradicts himself? Let’s go back and see what Clinton said in 1998, speaking about the potential threat Hussein posed:

“”What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply? We fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he’s made. … If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.””

So why the flip-flop from Clinton? It should be clear: It’s politics, down and dirty. Anything to make Bush look bad is good; never mind that the security of the American people is at stake. Now the Democrats’ apprehension about voting for a war resolution before November elections is starting to make sense.

Joining Clinton in attacking the president, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said on the Senate floor last week, “”We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about life and death.””

How can Daschle say that with a straight face? Since the debate about war began, Daschle has been politicizing the issue, holding up a vote in the Senate that would give the president the power to oust Hussein for almost a month now.

Apparently, he feels that Democrats can’t vote their real feelings with elections imminent. But if they’re so worried about how they’ll come across to the American people through voting — where, I might add, there’s no spin — they should be. They’re not considering our best interests, just theirs. Reelection and power trumps the good of the nation once again.

Also in step with the Clinton doctrine of appeasement, former Vice President Al Gore’s Sept. 23 speech in San Francisco is not surprisingly full of contradictions itself. He started by saying, “”I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on Sept. 11 and have thus far gotten away with it.””

But he then stumbled over that idea when he later said, “”Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf.””

Going one further, he also added, “”We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.””

Gore first says we shouldn’t redirect our attention to Iraq, then says Iraq poses a threat, and then, changing his mind once more, says we can do both just as long as we build an international coalition through the United Nations.

While we should welcome any international help, we shouldn’t depend on the rest of the world for our livelihood. It strikes me as odd that Gore, Daschle and the rest of their supporters endorse war only if the world does. If the act is right in and of itself, why do we need support? It’s moral relativism once again.

Objecting to Gore and the other Democratic dissenters, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Tex., said on Sept. 27 that taking the case to the United Nations would put the national security of the American people in the hands of others.

Joining the growing members of the pacifist camp, Jim McDermott, D-Wash., had this to say Sept. 30 in Iraq: “”If at 60 days, [weapons inspectors come] back to the United States and [say] ‘They wouldn’t let me into this place, they wouldn’t let me into that place’ — that’s a new circumstance and at that point we’ll make another decision.””

But the congressman needs to understand that Iraq has made it quite clear that inspectors aren’t going to be allowed to check Iraq’s presidential palaces, not to mention any underground or well-hidden weapons research facilities that we can’t even find.

We need to bring this fight to Saddam now, with or without the help of other nations. For it was Edmund Burke who said, “”All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.””