Tuesday, August 01, 2006
|
|
The National Security Collapse of the Democratic Party
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:49 PM
|
|
I have already posted on Democratic Congressman John Dingell's extraordinary equivocation about the nature of Hezbollah: "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Both Dean Barnett and I have posted on the decision of Demcoratic leadership in both House and Senate to make the November campaign a referendum on cutting-and-running from Iraq.
The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Joe Lieberman's challenger and Kossputin's creation Ned Lamont because of the senator's support for the war.
Now RawStory reports on Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey's "The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006," which has, incredibly, garnered 22 co-sponsors.
Incredibly, the Democratic Party's commitment to national security has collapsed. It is absurd to even argue the case. If Democrats regain power in either House, they will oblige the country to retreat across a broad front in the war with Islamic jihadism, weakening Israel in the process, emboldening Iran even beyond that country's already extraordinary fanaticism, and committing the country to --at best-- a fortress America approach. When, as would inevitably happen, a jihadist government obtained WMD, the country would not be able to return to the battlefield, and those WMD would inevitably find a use somewhere in the world.
The country is confronted with the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah threat, and with a new threat in Somalia, and the Democrats want to retreat and hope for the best.
There isn't much point in arguing with the left about the folly of their proposed path. What's absolutely necessary is that the center-right prevail in November. The ABC Coalition noted below is a great place to focus energy, but I note ElectionProjection's grim outlook, and want to suggest we start by assisting the four GOP incumbent senators who are best positioned to win crucial close contests:
Montana's Conrad Burns
Ohio's Mike DeWine
Missouri's Jim Talent
Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum
Each is a very solid, very committed vote for victory in the war and clarity about our enemies. Each is opposed by a Democrat whose election will push the Senate towards policies of defeat and retreat.
In an interview yesterday with Neil Cavuto, President Bush explained the sort of focus he brings to the war, which is exactly the focus the GOP and center-right voters need to bring to elections' impact on the war. Cavuto quoted Victor Davis Hanson and asked the president is the country had forgotten that we are in a war. The president replied that indeed some have forgotten that crucial fact. He continued:
But I know it's a war and I think about it every day of my presidency.
I think about Al Qaeda every day. I'm asking questions all the time: Are we doing everything we can to protect this country?
And I want the American people to know that, even if they don't think that we're still at war, I do, and, therefore, will deploy the — the assets of the federal government to protect us here at home and to bring the people who — who intend to hurt us to justice.
An, at the same time, I fully understand that the ultimate long-term solution to the problem of Islamic totalitarianism is — is freedom. And what people are seeing today is a — is a clash between those who advance freedom and those who have a — an ideology based upon hate.
And, so, I have got two big issues, Neil, as we go into the future. One is to remind people we're still at war, but have them comfortable with the fact that the government's doing everything we can to protect them; and, two, to remind people that the terrorist activities of a Hezbollah or an Al Qaeda or a militant Hamas, are all linked, that they may not be coordinating together, but they have this kind of same attitude and same desire to stop the advance of democracy. The long-term peace for America will come when liberty is unleashed in the Middle East, and a policy that had excused tyranny in the past simply didn't work.
It may — the world may have looked safe, but, on September the 11th, we learned that the resentment caused by tyrannical societies could cause great harm to the American people.
So, to me, my presidency is — you know, I think, a lot about the economy, a lot about the questions you asked — but I spend most of my time thinking about how to protect the American people in what is a dangerous world.
The Democrats fundamentally reject this world view. They just don't believe it. And that's why the elections of the fall are so important, and why you should dig deep for these four senators, as well as other candidates as you are able.
|
|
|
Look, the Dems for nearly 50 years have mostly been Quislings on foreign affairs and security. During the Cold War, during Nam, during this time of fighting Islamofascism. But, since many Americans, the MSM, and other pollsters plus the duds on the Right like Pat Buchan. and Weyerich who continully tell us what a disaster Nov. will be, are emphasized on a daily level, I see now that we have to designate funds to only those reps who have a real chance to hold against Dem onslaughts. If the GOP loses in Nov., Bush will be brought up on charges of impeachment. We all see Conyers and Dingell and Rangel and Jackson Lee telling us that. Iraq will be lost. Maybe even Afghanistan. We will stop supporting Israel under the table as we are doing now and this nation will begin to look like Europe. Frankly I am sick and tired of those on the Right who undermine the GOP . We all know the GOP has done inane and stupid things. But, to abandon them now in WWIII as Newt writes, is national suicide. abundanthope.blogspot.com/ |
|
First, I agree with Hugh and many conservative commentators that the principle underlying the Bush Admin's stance on the GWOT is right on! I also won't quibble over results and execution thus far. From my historic perspective the results and strategy are on target.
Unfortunately, most people, most citizens and most voters do not care about the GWOT and that is the Administrations fault. There is no sense of national sacrifice, and why not?! Mr. Hewitt, if this is a life-death struggle for the future of our Republic, how can there be a more vocal minority against the war than the vocal minority for the war? I live in Denver, Colorado and I still see more Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers than yellow ribbons when I drive around town. As you well know, Colorado is a purple state. Rapidly changing from a tech and natural resource based economy to a "lifestyle" economy. While many conservatives here are willing to fight and win, the Republican Party itself is split over what should be simple Republican issues -- Referendum C/D for example (and I voted against the idiotic and self-defeating compromise).
The Dems are united and eager to make the war the central issue, because the Republicans are not seriously engaged in the war. Republicans will always lose "lifestyle" elections.
Courtesy of the White House, the country is not really at war. I still cannot carry on an intelligent conversation regarding the "Global War on Terror." Frankly, I would hope that even in the White House, around the Cabinet table, one will not find an intelligent conversation as to the purpose of the "Global War on Terror."
Finally, the Cold War was fought successfully when it was Cold. The US suffered serious defeats when the war turned hot in Korea and Vietnam. No need to debate that opinion, please just recognize that Democracies will have a difficult time winning a long term ideological struggle, if it turns hot... Ask VDH. After all, there was a point to Reagan's bellicose rhetoric, "We begin bombing in fifteen minutes" (sic). Reagan leveraged the existing detante and deterrence framework to commit the US to winning on those terms -- SDI and Reykjavik. Given the evolution of the EU is there any doubt that with a Mondale or Dukakis "nuclear freeze" Administration and we might have lost the Cold War?
Sorry for the lengthy comment and disparete ends.
Best,
DeadEye6
Denver, CO |
|
I disagree. Republicans have possessed working majorities in both houses and the Presidency for six years. They accomplished little beyond spending a lot of money for political gain. They still can't agree on a program to protect our borders and deport the illegals. Beyond the GWOT Republicans have accomlished little. Even the GWOT was possible only because President Bush took the task on as central to his administration and acted before congress began to waffle. Republicans do not deserve to be the congressional majority.
I'm sick and tired of being screwed by amateur Republicans. I'm ready for a professional screwing from the Democrats. Maybe the country will survive for ten years (and out last me).
I'm not going to give up my senatorial vote by withholding on DeWine, I'm going to vote against him and all other Republican incumbents.
Last minute heroics will not change my mind.
|
|
|
I was encouraged by President Bush's comments on Cavuto. If the dems wish to make the fall elections a referendum on the GWOT, then the administration should be making its case on a daily basis. The ideologies of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas, et.al. cannot be negotiated with. They must be defeated. It is clear that the terrorists understand this maxim as demonstrated by there methodology. Clearly the Israeli government understands the consequences of negotiating with terrorists. However, in America we have become so squemish in prosecuting the war on terror that we fail to, or are afraid to, remember our own dead and devestated of only 5 years ago. Do we think that we can fight a sanitized war in which no one is hurt and nothing is destroyed and somehow those who vow to destroy us will see our good will, have a collective epiphany, recant their villainous rhetoric, and suddenly agree to mutual co-existence? No. War is a dirty business. Keeping it that way discourages those who wish to support the insane rhetoric of Hezbollah, al Qaeda etc. |
|
i am alarmed that so many of the faithful republicans have fallen to the same argument that democrats mustered in previous elections. that being: vote AGAINST the other guys. is that all the leg-room we have left? it is truly disappointing and is an ominous sing of the failure of this group of GOP miscreants that the rallying cry is "we sure sucked lately, but imagine how much more it will suck if you let THOSE guys take charge?" what happened to giving us an affirmative to vote FOR rather than what to vote AGAINST?
i have seen this theme creeping into Hugh's posts a lot lately: the posts typically end with "a vote for democrats is a vote for this and that bad stuff."
it is a clear sign that the GOP has little to offer other than placing a bandaid over the failures they have wrought in their tenure since 2004. when you cannot lay out your successes as the very clear leaders of washington, you have not given people a reason to turn out in force.
and thus, i pray for the future of the country as the democrats set about kicking the can of action down the road so they can be seen for re-establishing the status quo... and also set about destroying bush with deadlock or worse at every turn once they regain power. |
|
I'm afraid I have to differ with your assessment of Mike DeWine of Ohio as a solid and committed vote for anything. Mikey has no spine whatsoever and will be more than happy to bend to whatever whim best suites his immediate purpose. Unfortunately, the conservatives in Ohio couldn't get together and agree that a single candidate would have a much better chance of drawing enough of the "Anyone But DeWhine" vote in the May primary to win the party nod. Doubly unfortunately, there are no qualified third party candidates and the Demobrat Sherrod Brown is an even worse option.
Then again, perhaps you meant that the senior Senator from Ohio would be solid and committed to freedom compared to the only remaining alternative. Against that position I can have to argument. Indeed, we're stuck with a horrible candidate to vote for instead of one that is even worse. |
|
Hugh reports John Dingell as saying "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
That is an astonishing statement. That such a statement would come from the leadership of the Democrat Party bespeaks of serious pathology.
|
|
As has been pointed out on various occassions, the year before we overthrew the Taliban in Afhganistan the Bush Administration gave money to the Taliban. Why?
I'm reminded of a conference I attended back in 1990 or 1991. The wall had just fallen, communism was seen as dead, and Democracy clearly the winner.
I went to a week-long college seminar in the summer. Every day was filled with speakers and committees on world events.
One of the guest speakers was Reagan's former Amassador to the Soviet Union. His speech thesis was how to continue the spread of Democracy in the World.
He related at that time there were two competing schools of thought in the Reagan administration. One was to go for all out Democracy, politically and economically, and the other was to build the economy before working for government change.
The compromise we are still living with today was to try one approach with Russia and the other with China and see which worked over time. With Russia we encouraged economic and government reforms in tandem. With China we took a slower approach and worked towards economic reforms first.
Looking back now, which country is in better shape for its people? Which is more democratic? Russia or China? Which has a more bleak outlook?
Before 9/11 the Bush administration was taking the Chinese approach to encouraging Democracy in Afghanistan. This is to say we were supplying aid and trying to build the economy first before applying political pressure. The Taliban agreed with US on one thing, drugs were bad and they wanted a different economy. After 9/11 we reversed strategies and "pulled a Russia" with respect to implementing Democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Given we were giving money to the Taliban, one has to wonder if in fact the Taliban would've surrended Al Qaida given legal pressure was brought to bear? We'll never know.
Now, what does all this have to do with the "rule of law" and the price of tea in China you ask?
1.) People who struggle to survive and eat are least likely to appreciate a Democratic approach to the rule of law and more likely to pay attention to who happens to feed them. I believe Kuwait is giving millions of dollars in aid to Lebannon.
2.) Democracies are predicated historically on a middle class of some sort. That middle class itself is then predicated on "public education" of some sort. A booming economy requires a lot of people and these people must be educated. This is what is happening in China.
3.) Too much change at once, i.e. both economic and political, is antgonistic towards building Democracy which is contigent on the rule of law for countries that have no tradition of Democracy. That rule of law respect is predicated on a middle class, an economy, and education.
With China today our US policies are slowly building towards a change to a Democratic Government. We are working within the legal sphere to implement this change.
The classic cases for all out change are taken from what happened with WWII. We declared war, won victory, and rebuilt two Democratic countries out of former authoritarian regimes. But that approach required staggering US committment. A draft, a Marshall Plan, lots of expertise and money. Even to this day we have military presence and support for Germany and Japan because our military has been there for so long. Respect for the rule of law was accomplished through overwhelming force and committment.
Our actions in the middle east have worked against bringing those people inline with Democratic people's thinking; respect for the rule of law.
Rather than declaring war on Afghanistan we should've taken the "Chinese" approach and worked towards improving the economy. This notion that we can just "overthrow the government" or "kill the terrorists" is silly. The enemy is using the killing of innocents to recruit more enemies. What the right wingers will never admit is that al Qaida has more members today than before 9/11 because of what we have done. If there are more al Qaida memebers, are we at risk more or less?
If we had treated Afghanistan and Iraq as law enforcement problems at a minimum we would not have increased al Qaida recruiting and the threat to the US today.
Afghanistan and Iraq are both closer to anarchy today than before 9/11. Anarchy is the friend to terrorists, not Democracies. We have lessoned respect for the rule of law in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Israel with Lebannon. The end result will be more anarchy and more terrorism.
To quote the Russian Amassador to Russia under Reagan, in short a respecting the law of bad governments is a starting place for slowly building changes toward greater democracy in that country unless one wants to make a McArthur Plan style committment of hundreds of thousands of troops, huge dollars, and decades of occupation.
The Bush administration is guilty of trying to implement quick fixes where none exist. Building an economy, building a democracy takes time and is a gradual process. We will not win the war on terrorism by killing all terrorists. We will win the war on terrorism by increasing the worlds overall respect for the rule of law and wiping out anarchy. Building that takes time. |
|
We cannot solve our terrorism problems at home.
Yesterday in the city of Oakland a women dropped dead as she was shot through the head while to gangs shot it out. She was hit by a stray bullet.
Today the cops killed a 17 yo boy who pulled a gun and shot at the cop.
What kind of kid has the nerve to pull a gun and shoot at a cop?
Oakland is terrorized. The citizens refuse to speak out for fear of retaliation so criminals don't get prosecuted.
Yet as Americans we do not care about this kind
of domestic terrorism. We care about the 2,500 Americans who have died in Iraq but not the 81 that have died in Oakland.
If we cannot solve terrorism problems at home, how can we hope to solve terrorism problems in a foreign country. Oakland is a city the size of 300,000. Why is Bush not speaking out about this?
http://kcbs.com/pages/63011.php?
Posted: Monday, 31 July 2006 12:39PM
Surge in Oakland's Murder Rate Frustrates Mayor Brown
Oakland, Calif. (KCBS) -- Three more names have been added to the list of homicide victims in Oakland where the mayor is taking a get tough stance in response to the violence.
Three Saturday killings pushed Oakland's murder tally to 81.
|
|
First of all, let me just say how refreshing it is to read a post by a liberal intellectual, who has articulates a logical thesis and supported it with concrete examples, as a opposed to a post written by a Howard Dean leftist who lacks any historical perspective, and who invariably displays utter ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
You make several good points. In fact, your central argument is almost identical to the argument put forth by Robert Kaplan, which is that stable institutions--you refer to these as "the rule of law"--are more vital to achieving liberty and ending tyranny, than hastily propping up a democratic government.
Here's where I disagree with you. There's a a substantive and indeed fundamnetal distinction between China and the Taliban. China never attacked the United States. The Taliban did, albeit indirectly. The Bush administration gave the Taliban an ultimatim: surrender Bin Laden and his 200 closest lietenants or face an invasion. The Taliban refused the offer, and the rest is history. Thus, 9/11, much like Pearl Harbor, forced the U.S. to embrace a "quick fix" strategy, as you rather callously and somewhat inaccurately put it. Indeed, we have made a substantial political and economic committment to Afganistan in Iraq, reminiscent of Containment. As you know, the Democrats have attacked Bush for doing just that, i.e. investing massive resources in the Middle East.
|
|
Hewitt is a liar. He is guilty of using a brush of one anecdote about Dingell to paint the rest of the Democrats with.
The house voted 410-8 in support of Israel last week. Dingell was one of the 8.
Hewitt is a liar.
Every budget for the additionally money for the war in Iraq in the last 3 years has passed the Senate unaimously.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/politics/main1717238.shtml
(AP) President Bush has quickly signed a $94.5 billion emergency spending bill Thursday, funding requests for America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and providing new aid to Gulf Coast hurricane victims.
It came just hours after the Senate approved the bill in a 98-1 vote. Most of the money — $66 billion — goes to the Pentagon for military operations overseas.
|
|
|
|