Oh, that's so unfair. But who are these "Democrats?" They call themselves donkeys, but I think they're zebras.
Are they represented by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)?
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis [show]... a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
Nah, that ain't it. How about Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean?
The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.
No, that can't be it, either. Chairman Dean says that remark was taken out of context. (Although it's tough to tell how.)
There's a story floating around (you NYTimesSelect subscribers can access it here) that French now-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin noted during a conference that if Bush and Blair succeed,
"France would appear ridiculous."
There is a long silence. Another diplomat says, "The Americans and British are our allies."
Villepin ends the meeting...
Yeah, that's about it. Today's Democrats are like the French. They have no allies, only interests, and their greatest fear is appearing ridiculous. (Or being eaten.)
Like the zebras.
Strangely enough, those on the lefter side of the Democratic Party who want an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq ala the glory days of Vietnam War protests at least have a principled position. They want to erase the Etch-A-Sketch. A do-over. But there are only three of them or so in the US government, and besides, there are no do-overs in life.
The rest want their political cake and eat it too: they want Bush and Blair to succeed in Iraq, while being seen in their own countries to have failed.
We shall give the last quote to Tony Blair himself, who like George W. Bush is loudly reviled in his own nation, although he, like Bush, recently won re-election anyway:
President Bush’s inauguration speech last week, marks a consistent evolution of US policy. He spoke of America’s mission to bring freedom in place of tyranny to the world. Leave aside for a moment the odd insistence by some commentators that such a plea is evidence of the “neo-conservative” grip on Washington – I thought progressives were all in favour of freedom rather than tyranny. The underlying features of the speech seem to me to be these. America accepts that terrorism cannot be defeated by military might alone. The more people live under democracy, with human liberty intact, the less inclined they or their states will be to indulge terrorism or to engage in it. This may be open to debate – though personally I agree with it – but it emphatically puts defeating the causes of terrorism alongside defeating the terrorists.
I think neither America's Democrats nor the French basically disagree with Tony Blair. They're just embarrassed they didn't think of it first, or if they did, that they lacked the fortitude to bear the slings and arrows that go with trying to make it a reality.
Their only remaining hope of retaining their self-respect is to claim that their kibitzing, their questioning, their "speaking truth to power," will make the critical difference between success and failure in Iraq. So be it:
Without your help, the Iraqi people could not have made it even this far. They thank you, as does the entire free world, which counts on you guys not to destroy America, but to chasten it, keep it honest. They call referees "zebras" for their neutral black-and-white shirts.
Referees are an essential part of the game, although they are not in it. Ridiculous? Nah, even when they're wrong. They also serve who stand on the sidelines and move the yard markers as one team or the other marches to a touchdown.
Which team scores is of no concern to them. In their eyes, each team deserves to lose, and neither team particularly deserves to win, Bush's or bin Laden's. But we treasure them, and will make sure the zebras (and the French), who cannot or will not defend their own lives, are not eaten.
10 comments:
oh.. The self-fulfilling prophecy!
It was quite a good read, very humourous.
Tom, I'm convinced the Democrat opposition to the war in Iraq proceeds thusly:
1. They tried supporting it and the Patriot Act, etc.
2. They got hammered in the 2002 elections.
3. They thought, hmmmm, this could be part of an FDR style realignment that everybody's been talking about for years.
4. Political consultants said, "You've gotta distinguish yourselves from your competitor." You can't compete with the GOP on defense, so start playing the Vietnam card and buid fatigue."
5. The Dems started taking the anti-Iraq position. Gingerly, at first. Howard Dean showed them the way.
6. After you say something enough times, "Bush lied," you start to believe it. Remember Pascal: Act as though you have faith and eventually, you will. Some of them are now true believers in the Bush lied thesis even though they didn't believe it to begin with.
Tom, this is an admirable and fair-minded analysis. Thanks for posting it.
Tom, sometimes I don't know why I bother with you. Occasionally, you show promise as a real thinker, but times like this, you sink to gutter Republicanism.
The problem with pieces like Tom's and your comment above, Keith, is that they lump all criticism into the "withdrawal" category as if it was a zero-sum equation, "Either you're with us or against us." That just ain't so. They also pretend that the withdrawal crowd is somehow lacking in a moral and logical foundation for what they advocate. In fact, the logical foundation for departure can easily trump that of staying.
I personally happen to agree with staying for what I recognize as a profoundly moral reason. But I'm not about to let the Right (or the Left) get away with shoddy reasoning, which is what leads to so many of the -for lack of a better term- debates here.
What's sad is that, in a large way, the vociferously loud withdrawal crowd is embracing isolationism and paints the whole Left with the same brush in the eyes of the Right. The beauty of the Left is its diversity of opinion (something that some on the Left are trying to quash in a very wrongheaded fashion).
Further, the CNN piece Tom links to is a gross distortion. The resolution being voted on was proposed by Republicans and was a gross misrepresentation of Murtha's views in an attempt to make critics "put up or shut up." Murtha never advocated immediate withdrawal, but a restructuring of military deployment to improve troop security within Iraq with an eye towards a pullout to begin in six months.
So, using a defeated Republican resolution to try and tar the Democrats? That's low, even for rank partisanship.
Keith:
This statement, "It is as if they think, minus US troops, all would be peace and harmony in Iraq" either indicates that you are a liar or do not actually read and/or understand liberal opinions before passing judgment on them. Which is it?
Actually, Keith and James, I wrote that the "withdrawal" crowd had a principled position. It is those who hamstring and undermine without a substantive alternative for whom I reserve my disdain.
Still, let them keep throwing their flags and blowing their whistles. It's the American Way. We shall continue to protect them from the hyenas regardless.
1) Tom, if I misinterpreted and therefore misrepresented your views, I apologize. I guess I'm waiting for an actual example of people who "hamstring" for the purpose of scoring points that doesn't rely on gross misrepresentation of expressed views. I have yet to see anyone of any actual cultural or political significance say that the U.S. or the Bush Administration "deserves" to fail.
2) Keith:
A) There is every indication that our troops are quelling sectarian violence, and not much indication that a full on civil war will occur.
Whuzzah? You are literally making this stuff up as you go.
More Iraqis are participating in the political process then taking up arms, against either us or other Iraqis.
This doesn't even remotely equate to a logical inference. In fact, it flies in the face of what Sunni leadership is on record as saying. It is entirely possible to do both, nor is it necessary for even a majority of Iraqis to take up arms for an increase in sectarian violence to ensue.
B) There is also every indication that a liberated Iraq, well on it's way to a democratic form of government, is serving as an inspiration to a great number of people in the Middle East. Especially those living under autocratic forms of government.
Again, making it up as you go along. There are no such indications, as was addressed earlier this week.
C) al Queda [sic] will always use whatever we are doing as an argument against us. If we leave, then we'll be seen as weak, a paper tiger who abandons their allies (just like Vietnam) If we leave, they will also claim it as a victory, and that will carry more sway with radical muslims then us leaving.
How many incorrect ways can you spell "al Qaeda?" Again, you're engaging in an emotional argument with no factual basis. To try and bring this back on-topic a little, this comment is a gross misrepresentation of what just about anyone on the Left has said. No one claims that al Qaeda will stop attacking us if we leave Iraq. However, roughly 90% of our opponents in Iraq are insurgents, not jihadists. Think IRA instead of al Qaeda. By a strategic withdrawal, we open one of two possibilities: Al Qaeda continues to focus on us, and we have more resources available to smoke them out; or they focus on securing a Caliphate, carrying their tactics over to the general Arab world and thus delegitimizing themselves in the eyes of the people and becoming marginalized and opposed. It's a win-win situation and one that doesn't require our presence in the Iraq. Imagine that.
D) You really think that they hate us because we're in the Middle East. Look around at all the other places radical Islam is sprouting up. The problem isn't us, it's them. They want to create the caliphate, regardless of the citizens will.
Again, you're not paying attention! Stop going all Tancredo and equating Muslims with al Qaeda. What, do you get all your information from Little Green Footballs or something?
Ensure that they don't develop weapons of mass destruction, like Iran is about to do...
As the sanctions grew less deadly, they became more ineffective. Perhaps you heard of the Oil-For-Food scandal (I think it made page A83 in the paper.)
The romantic myth of the sanctions will never fade, I think. The media does not want to look at their lethalness and corruption, as it reflects poorly on Clinton, for who 80-90% of them voted, and the Bushies can hardly admit that the US/UK killed tens of thousands of innocents with them.
An Islamic-minded government in Iraq is troublesome; however, consent of the governed is what we really mean by "democracy," and this will likely be a necessary step. The people will be accountable for the actions of their government, and we will be in a position to keep them on a short leash.
Post a Comment