No one has more contempt for the cowardice of Republican spokesmen than I have.

But because conservatives are abject cowards when they face actual liberals, I have often been reduced to what I have to do now: defending the Republicans I despise from obvious leftist hypocrisy. As usual I will do this by making a statement of simple facts that no cowardly respectable conservative would dare make.

Today every Democrat attacks Republicans by asking "Why didn't we take out Saddam Hussein when we had the chance?" They mean why didn't Bush's father, President GHW Bush, fail to go on to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein after we had won the Gulf War in 1991.

In 1991, American forces had driven the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and could have destroyed Saddam Hussein's remaining armed forces without much effort. So why didn't Bush Senior "take out Saddam Hussein?"

As the only man in America who has a memory I will tell you a big reason Bush Senior didn't "take out Hussein" in 1991. That reason was the Democrats who are doing all the shouting now.

I am the only American who remembers the weeks before the Gulf War began in 1991. Only I remember that back then the national press had one main topic, like the terrorist attacks are the only main topic now. That topic was, "Should America go to war with Iraq, or should it give nonviolent sanctions more time to work?"

At that time, the then-President GHW Bush said he would go into Iraq with or without congressional approval. But the great debate went on in congress anyway.

Republicans put in a bill to support President Bush's taking military action. The Democratic leadership was solidly against it, Republicans and moderate Democrats were solidly for it. The debate was dramatic and all over the media in the weeks before the Gulf War began.

Guess what the main point that the Democratic opposition made against going into battle against Iraq was? Guess what was the one point they hammered on day after day, headline after headline, with the entire nation watching and talking about it?

Their one big argument was that, if they gave him the power, Bush would not just throw the Iraqis out of occupied Kuwait. They said that Bush would use those powers to go to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Republicans promised, day in and day out, that they would not under any circumstances use the power congressional sanction would give them to "take out" Saddam Hussein. President GHW Bush assured the Democrats that he had no intention of "taking out" Saddam Hussein.

A quarter of a billion Americans heard that debate in the media and everywhere else, and not one of them remembers a word of it except me.

But today when Democrat after Democrat demands to know why Bush's father didn't "take out" Saddam Hussein the fact that they were fanatically opposed to the idea in 1991 has not been mentioned by a single respectable conservative spokesman.

It still hasn't.

Republicans are so pathetic. When liberals attack them they only know how to whine about how that they are not whatever it is the left has decided to call them, which is usually some kind of naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

After the whine, conservatives say that whatever it is the liberals are for, they are even more for it.

Liberals accuse Republicans of being against changing the population of America by massive immigration. Conservatives respond that they want to change the American population by massive immigration. Conservatives tell liberals that their "conservative" capitalist approach will use greed to bring in and integrate more waves of third worlders than the liberal programs will.

With all their money and media access, Republicans simply cannot truly oppose liberals. Even when liberal criticism is pure hypocrisy, respectable conservatives cannot look liberals in the eye and call them on it.

That is why they are labeled "respectable" by the media. "Respectable" means "harmless to the long-term liberal agenda".

For decades liberals declared that "so-called criminals" were actually just people oppressed by Society. As the 1964 leftist film starring Anthony Perkins put it in the title, "We are All Guilty." Self-hate is the basis of all leftism.

As liberals took over America in the 1960s crime went through the roof. One of the things that caused a nationwide reaction against the left was their love of criminals. Leftists said if you treat felons nicely they won't commit crime.

Coddling criminals was a disaster. No idea that is fashionable with the left ever WORKS.

Even so, Republicans did not want to make a big thing of crime because liberals said that the crime issue was just a front for racism. Everybody knows how high the black crime rate is, so to mention crime was what we now call profiling and they used to call racism. Either way it means anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

In the early 1970s a group of leftist women featuring Bella Abzug called together their pet media and announced that they were the Women's Movement. So everybody left and right said that women's rights were now represented by this solidly leftist "Women's Movement."

One of the main things this Women's Movement was screaming about was the enormous increase in the number of rapes in the 1960s. Every woman standing there was a lifelong liberal. Every woman standing there, until the moment they announced the Women's' Movement, had been a best friend to rapists and other felons.

Until that moment these women had called rapists victims of society, and they had pushed Eldridge Cleaver's book that encouraged blacks to rape white women as a legitimate expression of black rage.

No conservative ever mentioned any of this. They went into their usual fetal position and whined they were not really against women the way the Women's Movement claimed they were. They said they were more for whatever the left was for than the left was.

The fact that until the day they became leaders of the Women's' Movement its leaders had been on the side of the rapists was never mentioned by a single respectable conservative.

It still hasn't.