Posted on 08/24/2005 9:12:40 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The disgraced former Senator of Colorado writes an op-ed in the Washington Post that is a real piece of work. Keep in mind, this is the guy who masterminded the disastrous McGovern campaign, and has long been an anti-war guy. Here's a sample of his column in the Post:
To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."
Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."
At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation's honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.
---
The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.
First of all, he has no answers of how to move forward. All he wants is theatrics. His vision of leadership is a person who isn't afraid to turn tail and run, crying and sobbing and apologizing to the world the whole way.
Harry Truman defeated communism? I wonder if Ronald Reagan knows that?
JFK was all about civil duty, but had nothing to do with Vietnam? Who is he kidding?
In 1988, Osama bin Laden formed Al Qaeda. In the same year, Gary Hart had to drop out from his presidential run because he got caught playing sailor with Donna Rice and showing her his mast. It wasn't until 1998, after a decade of irrelevance, that Bill Clinton put him in charge of a report on terrorism that nobody listened to. His main claim to fame was meeting with Condi Rice six days before 9/11 and warning of a coming terrorist attack, inferring that he called his shot. The problem is he had no idea of who, how, where, or when. But Condi was supposed to do something immediately.
Let's look at how he reacted to 9/11. He appeared on the Lehrer News Hour as part of a panel eight days after the devastating attacks on New York and Washington.
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Hart, what's your view of how far we should go to satisfy the - demand is maybe too strong a word - but these sensibilities or considerations of these would-be coalition partners to get them on board?
FORMER SEN. GARY HART: We're trying to do two things at once and we should be doing a third. We're trying to find the people that perpetuated this Satanic act and punish them -- bring them to justice or retribution of some kind. At the same time the President has announced we're trying to root out -- root and branch -- terrorism worldwide.
In the first we may have to go it pretty much alone or seek what help we can wherever we can in our determination. The second, I think we do need the broadest coalition possible. I hope it's not just a replication of the Persian Gulf group, our allies in Europe for example and a few others. I think for example, Russia and China could be very helpful to us here. We ought to have a military delegation in Moscow now meeting with the commanders of the Afghan War finding out what to do and also what not to do. They have some experience there.
The third thing we ought to be doing - it seems to me -- is not focusing so much on the retribution and the punishment that we neglect protection and prevention of the next act. We ought to be concerned that this is not just the beginning of terrorism -- I mean not the end of terrorism; it's the beginning. And if we put all of our effort and all of our energy into punishment and we have another attack because we weren't building up our own defenses at home, then I think that's the worst possible thing that could happen.
So we should have consulted with Russia, when we did in weeks what the Russians couldn't do in years? I almost shudder under such rotten foresight.
He also said we shouldn't focus on retribution and punishment as much as prevention here. Remember this isn't Iraq. This is Afghanistan we're talking about here. Eight days after they hit us, and he wants us to worry more about trying to prevent the next hit than going after the people who did it. The problem, obviously, is there is no way to protect this country from another attack 100% of the time, and he knows it. It can be improved, but it is foolish to believe we can become perfectly safe. And honestly, he doesn't really even want us to try.
On his website, he responds to a setup question about concerns about civil rights and liberties post 9/11, and says the following:
We must find the balance, but it will never be perfect. The Bush administration, with the support of Congress, is moving too far toward the security side of the scale, especially in denying due process to "detainees" and in establishing elaborate intelligence collection systems.
So how can he say we should worry about security more than retribution, in the time period immediately following the most severe attack on this country in generations, and later say we're worried too much about security?
This column is just the latest nonsense from a man this country can consider itself blessed to not have had as president.
What the left forgets...is that after the Vietnam protest era, they ended up with crushing defeats in 68 and 72...but hey, let's "party on" dude...
oh that's just Gar, up to his old monkey business... ; )
if i am not mistaken that was the name of the boat upon which he was spotted with Donna Rice. his denouement, so to speak...
Gary Hart will be known by history as the Democrat adulterer who had better taste than President Clinton.
She got her life together, and is doing some good work..
Gary Hart- Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Defense for saving the whales and tracking oil spills....up the same old same old Monkey Business.
i know, i remembered that she had turned out ok, even before i was able to mentally pull up her name. good for her.
The boat was called the "Monkey Business."
Gary Hart(pentz) is a driveling tool.
His idea of "MODERATE" is Carter and a Democrat Congress. He truly describes the mid 70s as "MODERATE".
Red6
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.