War on terror vs. war on the president

NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE (Also in the Austin American Statesman) ^ | Thursday, February 12, 2004 | James Lileks

[Arrowhead1952]

NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Baathists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.

Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.

The actual President Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegal immigrants, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.

The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding -- perhaps an attempt to placate people who wouldn't vote for him if he showed up in performance with Karen Finley and a can of Hershey's syrup. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.

And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamic terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.

Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.

So both sides have elements that seem unserious about the defining issue of the day: the war. But the right's malcontents snipe from humid redoubts of Internet message boards. The left's biggest spokesmen are parading their delusions.

No less than Al Gore has practically accused the president of treason. In a Feb. 8 speech in Tennessee, Gore went on an alarming rant, performed almost in an arr-matey pirate voice. "He betrayed this country!" Gore bellowed. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

We've been manipulated into a state of fear, Gore shouted. Really. Which administration spent most of 1998 warning us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, only to launch some missiles and walk away? Gore saw all the intel on WMD. Gore was part of an administration that pushed for regime change because it viewed Saddam, correctly, as a danger to the region and to America. Does Gore think we don't remember everything Democrats said about Saddam and WMD, when they felt responsible for the nation?

As for that state of fear, well, anyone out there feel afraid of Saddam today? Didn't think so.

Gore should give this speech at the convention. Why not? Why not stand up and give vent to all the poisons hatching in the muck? Why not tell America that Bush lied about everything, that he took the country to war for reasons he knew would be discredited, just so Halliburton could make another buck or two? It's what they seem to believe, after all. The delusions of their fringe have become articles of faith for the mainstream. Bush was AWOL! Bush knew! Bush lied! Bush never flosses! Skull and Bones! Plastic turkey!

At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.

[Arrowhead1952]

These two sentences belong at the very top.

It's what they seem to believe, after all. The delusions of their fringe have become articles of faith for the mainstream. Bush was AWOL! Bush knew! Bush lied! Bush never flosses! Skull and Bones! Plastic turkey!

At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.

[js1138]

Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Baathists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

Paging Peggy Noonan. Here's your paragraph.

[MamaLucci]

Check this out....

At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush

Coincidence? I think not. ;)

[Independent520]

The democratic party has become the party for those who have forgotten 911


http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html

[alloysteel]

The Democrats have skated dangerously close to a point of no return in the rhetoric they have ramped up against George W. Bush, where the internal and external security of this country is concerned.

There are many reasons, all good and legitimate, to call into question many of the decisions that Bush has made on any number of domestic issues. But the very reason why any form of national government is created in the first place, the common defense against an external opponent, is not a topic for partisan discussion. By injecting partisan disagreement into foreign policy, the apparent effect is to make a separate peace, and potentially an alliance, with enemies who have sworn to exact great punishment on the US.

Even at the height of a political campaign during WW II, in 1944, the foreign policy of both the Democrats and Republicans was exactly the same - defeat of the Axis powers. During the Korean War, the thrust was still very similar, the objective was to stop the advance of the Communist forces from taking over all of the Korean Penisula. When the Viet Nam War heated up, the original idea was to maintain a holding action, so the nations of East Asia would not continue to tumble into the monolithic International Communism, a concept embraced early on by the Democrats, under Kennedy and Johnson, and adopted by Nixon.

Then Viet Nam became "Nixon's war", and an issue for partisan politics. The divisions created in those years remain with us today, with the anti-war faction becoming a de facto ally of the external enemy.

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

There is no middle ground, Certainly not with an enemy as implacable and irrational as the Islamic militants.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Arrowhead1952]

The Democrats have skated dangerously close to a point of no return in the rhetoric they have ramped up against George W. Bush, where the internal and external security of this country is concerned.

I heard something "from one of the horses' mouths. The entire AWOL allegations by LTC Bartlett were because he and two others, LTC Adams and CW3 Conn, all RATs (notice something here - Adams, Burkett & Conn -- first letters = ABC) started writing emails because they felt that they were "victims" of the system. They started "recruiting" other disgruntled guardsmen/women to start a smear campaign.

Burkett was here, only for a short time while his medical condition was being addressed. One of them loaned a computer to another staff member, who happened to find "extremely damaging allegations against several top guard officers and George Bush.

That is when the stuff hit the fan.

[NordP]

Great minds ;-)

[livius]

The actual President Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegal immigrants, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing.

The Ideal Reagan! LOL!

This is an excellent article, overall, and I think it reminds us of exactly what a dangerous game the Dems are playing. Not to mention some on the right, who believe that if they don't get their favorite issue done just the way they want it, the game's over. Well, maybe it will be, but not the way they were imagining in their "humid redoubts."