Cut & Run Mentality
Mona Charen has a great column up over at Town Hall regarding the Democrats' cowardly cut and run mentality.
True to their heritage in foreign policy, 40 out of 45 Democratic senators voted last week to demand a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. As in every conflict since Vietnam, Democrats are hoping not to succeed but to skedaddle.
Imagine if the Democrats held a majority in the Congress. The cut and run impulse -- can you call it anything else? -- would become law. Well, the Democrats protest, we cannot condone this war for another minute because we were deceived into supporting it in the first place.
Ugh. I can't imagine if Democrats held a majority in Congress at this point in our history. It is too ghastly a thought. Almost as bad as "President Gore" or "President Kerry."
We'll return to that risible claim in a moment. But first let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true. Democrats were given faulty intelligence by President Bush and voted for the war based entirely on those misleading representations. Okay. But now we are in Iraq. The full prestige and credibility of the United States is on the line. Iraq has been liberated from Saddam, yet remains under assault from jihadists, dispossessed Tikritis, and a variety of other assassins and terrorists. Al Qaeda's ringleader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, maintains a network of suicide bombers and saboteurs who blow our people up when they can and cut off hostages' heads when they require added amusement.
That's just it...America deserves no prestige and credibility if these liberals are to be believed. We are the cause of the turmoil over there, not the terrorists. Liberal rags such as the New York Times won't even CALL them terrorists. Wouldn't be nice if they got as outraged over the beheading of an American soldier as they do over, say, saving an unborn child from death?
If we were to withdraw in the face of this onslaught, the message to al Qaeda and to the world would be obvious: defeat. Osama bin Laden took credit for chasing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and gloated that his forces had frightened the U.S. out of Somalia. How much more decisive would it appear to the jihadists if they were able to chase the U.S. out of Iraq? And not just to them, but to any potential adversary anywhere on the globe? Don't Democrats ever consider these matters? If they do not, can they really be considered mature or responsible?
Amen, Mona. That's just what the Dems want. An American loss in this War on Terror. That way, they get back in power, and when the inevitable attacks come, they can blame the Republicans and set themselves up as our saviors once again.
Were Democrats tricked into supporting the Iraq War? The New York Times, lead soloist in the left-wing chorus, claims that Democrats were deceived because the president's daily brief (PDB) was so much more comprehensive than the intelligence provided to the Congress in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). A number of Democratic senators have made the same claim, and it seems plausible on the surface as everyone knows that the president gets the very best intelligence available. But the bipartisan Robb/Silberman commission reported that the intelligence in the PDB was, if anything, more alarmist than that in the NIE. In other words, if the NIE said, "Saddam may be reconstituting his nuclear weapons program," the PDB would have said, "Saddam is almost certainly reconstituting his nuclear program." So if the Congress had seen the exact same reports the president saw, it would only have strengthened, not weakened, the case for war.
That's right. This column is full of facts such as the above, facts that Jim has posted again and again, and facts that the conservative blogosphere has been shouting from the rooftops. The MSM has a bad case of selective hearing, though. Only that which discredits Bush, America, and our troops is allowed through.
JAS adds: Jim Geraghty concurs, in a canny foreshadowing of what took place in the House last night:
And that's why they insist that Bush cut & run for them - because they could then blame him for the disaster that they themselves demanded, in the same way that they blame Bush for making the same decision to invade Iraq that they themselves supported.
The President said it well the other day: criticism of war policies and decisions is perfectly legitimate, but undermining the war effort itself, whether for treasonous impulses or myopic, crude partisan ambition, is, as he euphemized it, "deeply irresponsible," and as the Vice President better expressed it, "reprehensible." To be identified with this extremism will make Democrats' dreams of regaining Congress next year impossible. And yet the "Cindy Sheehan/Huffington Post/Kos crowd" demands precisely that open, rabid sedition - and they control the party purse strings.
If Republicans stay reengaged on this overriding issue (and stop bailing on the others), that's a dichotomy that the Jackasses will be unable to overcome.
True to their heritage in foreign policy, 40 out of 45 Democratic senators voted last week to demand a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. As in every conflict since Vietnam, Democrats are hoping not to succeed but to skedaddle.
Imagine if the Democrats held a majority in the Congress. The cut and run impulse -- can you call it anything else? -- would become law. Well, the Democrats protest, we cannot condone this war for another minute because we were deceived into supporting it in the first place.
Ugh. I can't imagine if Democrats held a majority in Congress at this point in our history. It is too ghastly a thought. Almost as bad as "President Gore" or "President Kerry."
We'll return to that risible claim in a moment. But first let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true. Democrats were given faulty intelligence by President Bush and voted for the war based entirely on those misleading representations. Okay. But now we are in Iraq. The full prestige and credibility of the United States is on the line. Iraq has been liberated from Saddam, yet remains under assault from jihadists, dispossessed Tikritis, and a variety of other assassins and terrorists. Al Qaeda's ringleader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, maintains a network of suicide bombers and saboteurs who blow our people up when they can and cut off hostages' heads when they require added amusement.
That's just it...America deserves no prestige and credibility if these liberals are to be believed. We are the cause of the turmoil over there, not the terrorists. Liberal rags such as the New York Times won't even CALL them terrorists. Wouldn't be nice if they got as outraged over the beheading of an American soldier as they do over, say, saving an unborn child from death?
If we were to withdraw in the face of this onslaught, the message to al Qaeda and to the world would be obvious: defeat. Osama bin Laden took credit for chasing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and gloated that his forces had frightened the U.S. out of Somalia. How much more decisive would it appear to the jihadists if they were able to chase the U.S. out of Iraq? And not just to them, but to any potential adversary anywhere on the globe? Don't Democrats ever consider these matters? If they do not, can they really be considered mature or responsible?
Amen, Mona. That's just what the Dems want. An American loss in this War on Terror. That way, they get back in power, and when the inevitable attacks come, they can blame the Republicans and set themselves up as our saviors once again.
Were Democrats tricked into supporting the Iraq War? The New York Times, lead soloist in the left-wing chorus, claims that Democrats were deceived because the president's daily brief (PDB) was so much more comprehensive than the intelligence provided to the Congress in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). A number of Democratic senators have made the same claim, and it seems plausible on the surface as everyone knows that the president gets the very best intelligence available. But the bipartisan Robb/Silberman commission reported that the intelligence in the PDB was, if anything, more alarmist than that in the NIE. In other words, if the NIE said, "Saddam may be reconstituting his nuclear weapons program," the PDB would have said, "Saddam is almost certainly reconstituting his nuclear program." So if the Congress had seen the exact same reports the president saw, it would only have strengthened, not weakened, the case for war.
That's right. This column is full of facts such as the above, facts that Jim has posted again and again, and facts that the conservative blogosphere has been shouting from the rooftops. The MSM has a bad case of selective hearing, though. Only that which discredits Bush, America, and our troops is allowed through.
JAS adds: Jim Geraghty concurs, in a canny foreshadowing of what took place in the House last night:
The Democratic Party is stuck with a furiously, passionately, intractably anti-war base that wants all of our troops out of Iraq immediately. Deep down, most Democratic officials know that an immediate, total pullout would be a disaster. Iraq would split, the country would become the next Afghanistan for training terrorists, al-Qaeda would be touting how its latest victory over the Zionist Crusader Infidels is a sign that Allah’s on their side; the Turks might cross the border to beat the snot out of the Kurds (sure, now they want to invade), Iran would probably try to make the Shia areas part of its territory or at least its “sphere of influence,” and the region's Sunni regimes would begin openly sending aid and arms to their brethren. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria would have to deal with the fallout of a civil war on their border that would make the current Iraqi violence look like small potatoes. The oil would stop flowing; gas prices would skyrocket even higher, the world economy would go into recession...
And that's why they insist that Bush cut & run for them - because they could then blame him for the disaster that they themselves demanded, in the same way that they blame Bush for making the same decision to invade Iraq that they themselves supported.
So the Democrats won’t call [explicitly] for a course of action they know would make things much worse. But they're also too cowardly to confront their own base and get the Deaniacs to face facts. Not only do you and I not know how to get through to the Cindy Sheehan/Huffington Post/Kos crowd, but I think Reid, Pelosi, Biden, etc. don't know how to get through to them, either. None of them seem to be willing to confront them directly or ask, “Why are you folks so eager to see a larger-scale rerun of Lebanon or Somalia, events that our enemies see as their finest hours?”And the reason why they can't get past March 2003? Because they know that they can't really put over the notion that the GWOT is another Vietnam. 9/11 might not have changed "everything," but it did leave the lasting impression that we are at war with Islamic fanatics who want to kill us all and will merrily do so if we give them the chance - such as by withdrawing from Iraq "at the earliest possible opportunity." They have to try and detach Iraq from the broader conflict, even though we're fighting the terrorists there. They have to try and discredit the President on Iraq even though he's doing there what he pledged to do over four years ago - fight the terrorists. They have to try and bug us out of Iraq without looking like they're surrendering to al Qaeda. It's a political tightrope that would be difficult to navigate undisturbed; now that the White House and congressional GOPers are fighting back, that tightrope is wobbling, and elected Dems will find it harder and harder to maintain their base-mainstream straddle without, as it were, "making a wish" - or a choice:
So Democratic leaders avoid conflict with their base by highlighting the bad news from Iraq, calling the President incompetent [and a liar], and demanding timetables (okay, Senate Republicans do that last one, too). But they’re not quite willing to go all the way out on the limb and call for an immediate withdrawal. Confronted with rabidity, most Washington Democrats have embraced the strategy of standing still and saying, "niiiice doggie."
The result is a party that cannot get past March 2003; they avoid the unpleasant truth that the die has been cast, we are in Iraq, and we cannot undo the decision to
invade any more than they can undo their votes in favor of it. [emphasis added]
The problem is, sooner or later a Democrat has to go to the voters with more than, “I’m gullible and easily misled by the Bush Administration's intelligence.” They have to say what they'll do now; few in the party can give an answer beyond pap (witness Edwards' silly op-ed).
And if a candidate and/or party don't have any real solutions, suggestions or ideas for Iraq, why should a voter think they'll do better on the war on terror as a whole? The main Democratic policy proposal on the war on terror is pretty much, “let’s spend more on Homeland Security.” Well, great, but you can only secure so many sites; as we saw in Jordan, if the terrorists can't hit a government building, they'll just move to a wedding at a luxury hotel. There's an endless supply of soft targets; a defensive crouch sooner or later will result in a successful terrorist attack.
Domestic issues are important, but sometimes it seems Democrats think that they can win in 2006 and 2008 talking about health care, BushLied™, reminding voters of DeLay’s indictment, repeating "Scooter Libby" like they have a nervous tic, explaining that China’s increasing demand has nothing to do with high gas prices, it’s all the fault of greedy oil executives; explaining that we can't drill in ANWR because of the caribou, etc.
They’ve got time to develop coherent policy proposals on national security, but if they don’t, 2006 may be more like 2002 than 1994.
The President said it well the other day: criticism of war policies and decisions is perfectly legitimate, but undermining the war effort itself, whether for treasonous impulses or myopic, crude partisan ambition, is, as he euphemized it, "deeply irresponsible," and as the Vice President better expressed it, "reprehensible." To be identified with this extremism will make Democrats' dreams of regaining Congress next year impossible. And yet the "Cindy Sheehan/Huffington Post/Kos crowd" demands precisely that open, rabid sedition - and they control the party purse strings.
If Republicans stay reengaged on this overriding issue (and stop bailing on the others), that's a dichotomy that the Jackasses will be unable to overcome.
posted by Jennifer at 3:04 AM
<<< Home