There was a time not so long ago when Democrats crossed the aisle to support Republican positions in war and vice versa. These were not always instances of gentility and partisanship wasn’t ignored; this occasional gesture was a recognition of national welfare that transcended politics.
What one observes with the Democratic party at the moment is an astonishingly anti-American posture that I have not encountered in my lifetime. The impression has been created that critics of the Bush administration are more interested in capturing the presidency than in winning the war in Iraq. In fact, if success in the war is attributed to President Bush, they would prefer defeat.
Obviously this isn’t the position of every Democrat, as Senator Liberman’s stance demonstrates, but it is the Kennedy, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Kerrey and Reid stance. Moreover, two former Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton, have engaged in what was once taboo for those who sat in the executive office: they have attacked the present administration abroad, in countries already hostile to American interests. Such behavior was always regarded as a “no-no.” You might disagree or even criticize a sitting president at home, but to do so outside the confines of the nation and in countries inimitable to U.S. interests was simply off-limits.
It seems that the Democratic party has imbibed the Michael Moore approach to politics which includes equal parts caricature and traitorous commentary. Moore has noted on several occasions that the Iraqi insurgents are the equivalent of the Minutemen and that we must suffer the bloodletting of our young for the misguided policies of our president.
Of course Moore is not alone. Frank Rich at the NY Times, among others, has engaged in a refrain that the president lied in order to promote the war effort. Despite the evidence that has been marshaled demonstrating a bipartisan concern about weapons of mass destruction prior to Bush’s election, the president’s detractors cannot let go of this theme.
It is instructive that the word “lie” is employed. Even if you embraced the Frank Rich stance (which I do not), you might say the president was “mistaken,” or “misguided” or “misread the signals.” But, of course, these words are equivocal offering the president an alibi, a concession the critics are not willing to consider.
The Democratic party position at the moment is search and destroy. Whether this is “get even” time for the Clinton impeachment or the venting of hostility over the 2000 election is anyone’s guess. What it does suggest is a parlous political state in which any move that harms the Republican leadership is deemed acceptable.
Bush, by contrast, acts as if Marcus of Queensbury rules apply to this street fight. He has been remarkably subdued in the face of continual vitriol heaped upon him. From my perch, I would prefer greater boldness on his part, a condition I did observe with his recent Annapolis speech.
Lest I am criticized for challenging criticism, let it be noted that I believe presidents should be criticized when it is appropriate to do so. What I’m getting at is criticism that verges on treason. When polls say that defeat serves us right, they either want to embarrass the administration without regard to the risks involved or they actually think a defeat for the administration is justifiable. That kind of criticism is beyond the pale.
This backbiting may be amusing for news aficionados, but the stakes are high and go well beyond amusement. The Fifth Column in the U.S. is growing, led by some officials who do not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. Lives are at stake, regional stability is in the mix and civilization itself is in the balance.
This is not hyperbole. Al Qaeda is watching and listening. Every anti-American position is music to their ears. For them, it defines a nation that has lost its will and fortitude. The disloyal Americans only embolden the enemies. We’ve been down this path before, albeit historical lessons have to be relearned. Unfortunately lives will be lost that could be saved and this nation will suffer before the critics learn their lesson.
18 comments:
Herb, this is very nicely done, both development and presentation. Has it been published elsewhere as well?
Here we go again.
Dr. London's point is clear: delegitimizing the reasons for war at this late date is to delegitimize our troops' presence in Iraq, making their job all the harder.
As previously noted, doing an autopsy on the patient is counterproductive when he isn't dead yet.
In order to suit the moral vanity of the Clintonians per the Kosovo intervention, the US should depart Iraq immediately, and after a week when civil war and genocide have started, we can go back in for morally acceptable "humanitarian" reasons.
I don't surf the web every day, but Mr. London's comments are the first I've seen noting the Carter and Clinton breach of protocol. Did we hear from former presidents like Ford, Reagan, or Bush I during Clinton's 8 years in office? I don't recall seeing/hearing a thing. Looking ahead, the Democrats have made a big mistake. Bush II is a Christian, but not all Republicans will play by Queensbury rules during future Democrat administrations. Abuse of judicial filibusters was the first big breach of tradition. Now former Presidents mouth off whenever they wish. There used to be at least a patina of dignity to politics in this country. That day is gone.
All I can say is that tlaloc, you need to say no to drugs.
Keith M., don't waste your time with tlaloc. Facts and solutions are alien to his/her area of expertise, which is revisionism: change facts, the definitition of words, the standards of success, then shoot out in an incoherent "argument." Tomorrow marks a particularly dark day for tlaloc: an election in Iraq. Tlaloc refuses to predict the future of the country. He/she dares not recognize that the difficulty of change in Iraq demonstrates the magnitude of its importance, and that it will continue. No longer will we have a country that invades its neighbors nor commits mass murder on its own citizens. Iraq is a great testimony to those who love what is good. I know from prior posts that tlaloc is a sophisticate who looks down on those who use the term "evil." Check this site in 1 year and I guarantee tlaloc will continue to post pseudo-intellectual comments while Iraq gets better and better.
"Not everyone wants democracy, and it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with democracy being a system that has strengths and flaws. For some the flaws are worth it for others it's not. The people of Iraq have been pushing for a theocracy. If Sistani ran for president he'd win in a second. As it is Islam has already been enshrined in their constitution and sharia in their laws."
Totalitarianism is now just an act between consenting adults. Lovely. This is what relativism gets you: thinking that totalitarianism is just another "lifestyle choice."
This is the most disgusting thing I have ever read. Our country's very first enshrined right is to criticize our government without fear of reprisal. The First Amendment exists to make dissent and criticism a legitimate political exercise devoid of the fear and imprisonment that was rampantly practiced under the English royals. The fact that Dr. London's entire argument rests upon a straw man that he then shoots flaming arrows of vitriolic stupidity at just makes it all the more putrid.
Perhaps Dr. London should consider that such sentiments, by wholly undermining who we are and what we are supposed to stand for as a country - liberty - truly enable the enemy he so abhors (al-Qaida, not the Democrats). By demolishing dearly held values and beliefs in the name of jingoistic patriotism, Dr. London assists al-Qaida in their most fervent desire: the end of the United States as we know it.
"I've heard of North Korea and Iran, both under mounting international pressure; do you have a "vast" list to share?"
In addition to the aforementioned North Korea and Iran, we have several countries that are about five minutes away from fundamentalist revolutions and/or under totalitarian rule with either aspirations or access to WMDs: Pakistan (got 'em), Kazakhstan (sitting on a big ol' Soviet stockpile), Uzbekistan, Syria, Jordan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Sudan, and (the former) Congo. India's got 'em. Israel's got 'em and won't admit it. Brazil wants 'em. And that's just off the top of my head.
Totalitarianism is now just an act between consenting adults. Lovely. This is what relativism gets you: thinking that totalitarianism is just another "lifestyle choice."
That's so completely beyond what Tlaloc wrote. He demonstrated that, given a choice, some people (in this case the Iraqis) are willing to choose to live under non-Western-democratic forms of government, such as theocracy. It has nothing to do with relativism, Dr. Beckwith, something you either glossed over or completely failed to comprehend in your eagerness to score points with a pithy comment.
The moderate in me wants to say hopefully something good will come out of the constructive criticsm, the speeches made by Biden, Lugar and the like... but I don't think you're being fair...
The propoganda machine against US interests in the middle-east has been running for a long time now, But after not fulfilling the purpose of the war, and abu-ghraib, The critism you're talking about humanizes us more than it can be used as pure propoganda in the middle-east. This is critisicm of the best kind, since there were mistakes made, The democrats are helping the US image more by admitting the mistakes, the republicans, All of them need to fall in line.
"This nation will suffer before the critics learn their lesson."
What lesson is that? Mentioning 'WMD' in every speech up to the war to sell the war and never mentioning how bad the reconstruction efforts would be? I am looking at the past, because it shows proven incompetence, while Bush at present shows mere signs of understanding just what is truly needed.
This is still about saving face for the republicans, just as long as they can make it look like a victory, and continue being hopeful. Remember the opponents in the nest election!
Keith, I agree that the voting is very promising. However, to call it a vote for democracy and not theocracy is more than a little premature. Iraq is essentially divided along sectarian lines - Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. Each group is voting because they a) want as much power as possible for their sectarian view and b) want to limit the opportunities of their sectarian opponents.
For example, the UIA, the principle Shi'a political entity, is widely viewed as incompetent, but the Shi'a are locked behind it in the name of sectarian unity. The UIA's militant wing, the Badr Brigades, are active in death squad-esque persecutions of Sunnis.
And that doesn't even begin to address the Constitution that was voted in place that enshrines Islamic law above any secular law. Don't confuse the mechanisms of democracy with what we would recognize as democracy. Think of it this way: In this country, we have conservative/liberal splits. In Iraq, they have sectarian (ie. theological) splits.
The Sunnis are voting this time, but what will most likely occur is an INCREASE in sectarian violence. You see, the Constitution in Iraq already enshrined the sectarian agendas of the Shi'a and Kurds. The Sunnis merely hope to roll back some of their gains. Unfortunately, all three sectarian groups portray their views as the national consensus. All indications are that this will lead to more conflict, not less. The most prominent Sunni group, the National Dialogue Council, called for a five day cease-fire so that the Sunnis might demonstrate via the voting process the legitimacy of their grievances. And THEN they can take up arms again.
The Sunnis were enticed to vote through the prospect of a one-shot constitutional amendment process. The Shi'a SCIRI has already declared that it will not allow such a process, and it is extremely unlikely that the Sunnis will gain the seats in parliament required to ensure such an overhaul.
The voting is an important milestone, but it's really rather premature, and against all common sense, to be terribly optimistic at this point. If, in a few weeks time, I'm proven wrong, I'll be more than happy to say so.
JC, the definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as applied by the likes of Dr. London, is so broad as to encompass supporters of the war. Think I'm wrong?
1) The war in Iraq drew resources away from the war on terror, giving al Qaida time to correct its sloppy tactics, making it harder to catch.
2) The war in Iraq has created a surge in jihadist recruiting not seen before March, 2003, as the U.S. fulfills the greatest "fears" that al Qaida had been stoking by invading an Arab nation filled with Muslim holy sites.
3) The war in Iraq has created a fantastic training/proving ground for terrorist/insurgence tactics and those who would learn them.
Those who support the continuation of this front on the war on terror provide ample aid to the enemy by enabling them to learn and perfect tactics, recruit, and train said recruits.
The pendulum swings both ways, man.
The Iraqi's voted, I only hope the best for their democracy. Anyone would be mad to think otherwise offcourse.
I agree with connie, and tlaloc's last post. Until investigations determine there wasn't use of selective intelligence. The political atmosphere is just going to get worse. The critisicm over how the war was handled humanizes the US.
Devang - maybe you ought to read his last few speechs, and see which department is going to be in charge of post-war stability and recontruction from now on.
The last few speeches? you're surely being fecitious, this war is 33 months old now. And his last few speeches have been because of his approval ratings. The whitehouse's policy of 'repeat same short message' has led to a neglectful whitehouse.
Of course, I suppose since many liberals look at Christian Republicans in Congress as creating a theocracy in our own country.
Straw man. No bearing on argument, not a refutation on point.
So I'm not going to bother trying to argue that ones religion, even in Iraq, may not exactly align with the way one governs.
That may be so in Western style democracies, but again, you're confusing the methods with the intent. As Tlaloc and I have both pointed out, the only group with a nominally secular (i.e. not governing from a sectarian position) interest is the Sunnis, who have been actively disenfranchised and are now playing a very poor game of "catch-up." Someone earlier pointed out that there have been fatwas issued to vote in the Iraqi election. What that person forgot to mention was that those fatwas were to vote for certain candidates of certain religious positions. And you still haven't gotten around the whole "Islam embedded in the Constitution of Iraq" thing.
When are you going to offer something substantive in refutation?
And what specific resources were drawn away from hunting al Queda. CENTCOM has troops in at least a dozen countries hunting al Queda.
I hate to break it to you, man, but even military resources are finite. What makes more sense? Blanket Afghanistan in U.S. troops and eviscerating our assailant, or making men, materiel, and money less available by sticking them in Iraq for the foreseeable future? You can spread your troops thin, like we have now, or you can use the never-disproved maxim of concentrating your resources. Hmm. Now, I'm only an amateur military scholar, but I'm going with the likes of Clausewitz, Clark, and Zinni on this one.
But on the flip side of that, formerly autocratic Arab states are now dipping their toes in the pool of democratic change. That would be the root cause we need to fix the most in the Middle East.
The most erroneous assumption yet. Who is to say that the results of the democratic process will be to our liking? After all, all indications are that our efforts in Iraq led to the ouster of reformists in Iran, and now the ayatollahs' butt-buddies in Iraq are poised to be at the head of the single largest player in what will emerge as Iraq's coalition government. Gee, that sounds like all kinds of favorable to me. (/sarcasm) What states are playing with democracy? Saudi Arabia, where over half the constituency is denied a vote and there were no opposition parties? Egypt, whose elections were rigged? The only ray of hope on that front is Lebanon, and even then, the Syrian loyalists won. And we didn't even have anything to do with Lebanon. The infinite horizon thing doesn't work as an argument, man.
We've also placed ourselves smack dab in the middle of the 3 biggest sources of terrorist in the world. Saudi Arabia is slowly starting to see it our way. Syria and Iran are becomming isolated on the diplomatic front.
*cough cough* Bullhonkey! *cough cough* Saudi Arabia is still chock full of Wahhabi schools and mullahs funded by members of the royal family. They've always cracked down on al Qaeda because al Qaeda has always wanted the King's head on a platter. Iran's been isolated on the diplomatic front for nearly thirty years. Explain to me how that's improved things there. Let's see, it allowed the ayatollahs to retain power. Then, in the last few years as the isolation thawed, reformists started to gain power and momentum. And then, boom, we isolate them again, and the ayatollahs regain their power. Woo flipping hoo. Syria has always been the black sheep of the Arab world. It hasn't changed the way it's done business for nearly forty years, what with the Baathists still firmly in place.
Also, Iran is not a principle source of jihadists. And while you're busy celebrating their isolation, recruitment is up in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Way to go.
It has also created a killing ground for those same terrorist trainees. And the terrorists don't have all that many tactics that they've used. Car bombs, suicide bombers, snipers, and ambushes. Hardly anything revolutionary there.
Ask any veteran. Ain't no substitute for real-world experience. At least you admit that we created a new front in the war on terror instead of engaged one. Hmm, let's analyze that strategy: "I haven't won on one front yet, so I'm going to open up another." And it worked so well for Napoleon and Hitler.
It is also creating an environment where the US is adapting its counter-insurgency/stablization tactics. We are learning and adapting at a far greater rate then the terrorists.
I really don't see how you can make that assertion. Yes, the U.S. is learning fourth-gen warfare again after a forty-year hiatus. But we're still in the remedial course - we're learning quickly because it's stuff we forgot we already knew. Once the curve flattens out a bit, then you might be able to make your statement with some sort of semblance of factual backing.
You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The results will still be good.
The results will never occur if you never admit that your reasoning was wrong.
devang - well, fine don't read them. Your loss.
Dude, there was nothing new in them. I listened to the speech yesterday and was minimally impressed. Bush must have a new speechwriter because he actually managed to attempt to refute some critics' points. Unfortunately, he fell back on the circular, infinite horizon, no definition of victory thing and undermined the progress he made.
Here's an example. Suppose we discover abuse at a detention center somewhere; maybe some pictures are leaked or something. Great, let's have an investigation, throw some guards in jail and be done with it.
But what do you do when further investigation reveals that it's not just one prison, not just a few guards, and that we haven't even been made fully aware of the full extent of the abuse?
But let's not try to find and publish more pictures of the same abuse. Let's not equate the abuse at the detention center with the ubiquitous (and generally more heinous) crimes of the Saddam government. "Abuse" doesn't even describe the kinds of things he and his people did.
But again, that's kind of the point, JC. We have testimony from people tortured under Hussein's regime as to what happened to them. And then we have pictures, testimony, policies and manuals pointing to what our government allows to occur to its detainees. And some of the time the two tales are identical. Read your Schopenhauer.
True, thousands of soldiers (and Iraqis) have died in this war, but Saddam is responsible for the dilberate [sic], cold murders of hundreds of thousands of people, as well as permanent injuries to more resulting from the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction.
And there are millions of people who don't see how causing thousands of deaths and permanent injuries again somehow makes up for that. I'm not one of them, but I can see where they're coming from. Is it really that hard to grasp for you? Especially when this country has failed to live up to its responsibilities for the enabling of Hussein's and others' terrors and is now running a war with some of those same enablers handling the whole thing?
That's the kind of criticism that might border on treason, given the dictionary definitions.
Dude, hyperbole, no matter how repugnant, cannot ever rise to the level of treason, except to reactionaries. Even - especially - given the dictionary definitions, there's a reason the Sedition Act was killed. Unless actively fomenting revolt, with a reasonable expectation that said revolt will actually occur, speech, by Constitutional right, cannot rise to the level of treason. You can speak all you want to whether it is morally correct or irresponsible to use such terms, but treason? Never. Such accusations are, in themselves, unpatriotic, unAmerican, and anti-liberty.
WHEN WAR BECOMES TREASONOUS
How can you expect Democrats NOT to criticize the war when most Dems in Congress voted against it. If you go to war against their will, they aren't going to shut up and they shouldn't. To do so would be treasonous to the principles our nation was founded upon; namely, freedom from foreign entanglement and democratic principles of free speech. As I see it, our duties to free speech supercede any national security concerns, seeing as we shouldn't be so mired in Middle East events in the first place. We left the beaten path during World War I, which, ironically, is when national security becomes a "proper" justification of the travesties our constitution faced during the first twenty-five years of the twentieth century. War, in almost every case in our history, has only led to a breakdown of freedoms at home. So, should we call war treasonous to our American principles?
Post a Comment