Posted on 05/10/2007 3:11:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
This war is lost," Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid recently proclaimed.
That pessimism about Iraq is now widely shared by his Democratic colleagues. But many of these converted doves aren't being quite honest about why they've radically changed their views of the war. Most of the serious Democratic presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, and former Sen. Jonathan Edwards -- once voted, along with Reid, to authorize the war. Sen. Barack Obama didn't. But, then, he wasn't in the Senate at the time.
Now these former supporters of Iraq find themselves under assault by a Democratic base that demands apologies. Only Edwards has said he is sorry for his vote of support.
But if the Democratic Party is now almost uniformly anti-war, it is also understandable why it can't field a single major presidential candidate who was in Congress when it counted and tried to stop the invasion.
After all, responsible Democrats in national office had been convinced by Bill Clinton for eight years and then George W. Bush for two that Saddam's Iraq was both a conventional and terrorist threat to the United States and its regional allies.
Most in Congress accepted that Saddam was a genocidal mass murderer. They knew he used his petrodollars to acquire dangerous weapons. And they felt his savagery was intolerable in a post-9/11 world. There was no debate that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or offered sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. And few Democrats questioned whether the al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Islam was in Kurdistan.
In other words, Democrats, like most others, wanted Saddam taken out for a variety of reasons beyond fears of WMD. Moreover, it was the Clinton-appointed CIA director George Tenet who supplied both Democrats and Republicans in Congress with much of the intelligence they would later cite in deciding to attack Saddam.
When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.
But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead they were hoodwinked by sneaky warmongering neocons or sexed-up partisan intelligence reports.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, especially in matters as serious as war -- but the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.
o why not come clean about their changes of heart?
Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.
Others may fear that admitting publicly that a disheartened America should not or cannot finish a conflict would send a dangerous message to our enemies. So while these Democrats accuse President Bush of being hardheaded and unwavering on Iraq, they are still afraid that their own mea culpas would send an equally dangerous message of inconsistency abroad.
Democrats need to admit the truth: that removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein and promoting democracy in his place seemed a good idea to them in 2003-4 when the cost appeared tolerable. Now, in 2007, with over 3,000 American lives lost in Iraq, they feel differently.
In other words, Democrats could argue that somewhere along the line -- whether it was after Fallujah or the start of sectarian Sunni-Shiite violence -- they either lost confidence in the United States' very ability to stabilize Iraq, or felt that even if we could, it was no longer worth the tab in American blood and treasure.
That confession could, of course, be nuanced with exculpatory arguments about the mistakes made by those in the Bush administration, such as: "Our necessary war that I voted for to remove Saddam worked; your optional one to stay on to promote democracy didn't."
Such an explanation of turnabout would be transparent and invite a public discussion. And it would certainly be more legitimate that the current protestations of "the neo-cons made me do it."
With America still engaged in a tough war, that kind of excuse-making just doesn't cut it.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."
Congress, State Lawmakers and down to city lawmakers on both the Republican and Democrat parties have given America away to special interest groups. The war and immigration legislation are two top issues that they do not want to solve as it benefits their special interest lobbyists versus what America used to stand for. We are a safe haven for lawbreakers now, not a safe haven for morals and ethics.
If any of the Democrats is elected our Al Queda enemies will have his (or her) measure. A demonstrated lack of will and a willingness to retreat in the face of minor adversity (made major by a hyperbolic press) will be what they see. Three thousand warfighter deaths over four years from a population of 300 million is minor by any historical perspective. If a democrat showing this lack of will and resolve is elected we will face attacks everywhere we are resented... stand by
Stop fighting terrorists in Iraq and we’ll be fighting them in the streets of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Here is the key to real long-term strategy. America needs to stop buying oil from its enemies. A combination of drilling in the short-term and alternatives / efficiency standards as part of a crash long-term program would seem like a very reasonable thing to do.
Sure glad that that was the main thrust of Dick Cheney's energy strategy . . . oh wait. (Insert picture of W. kissing Saudi)
There are many of the leftwing lunatics, who actually think we should fight the terrorists here
As long as THEY don’t have to do any of the fighting, and as long as none of THEIR family members or loved ones are hurt or killed.
And just who will we buy oil from then? The sad fact is the we buy oil from Russia, various middle east satrapies, Venezuela and Norway.
Can we survive on North Sea oil?
Oh, and this. It worse than that.
Because oil is fungible, it doesn’t matter if your buy it from your friends. It just the same as if you buy it from your enemies. The customers just shift around.
In these circumstances, you don’t just stop buying oil from your enemies, you stop buying oil period.
And you know what the chances are of that happening.
We buy our oil actually most from Canada
What the Indians needed, as we now can see, is to be regularized under the Law -- to toss off their ancient habits of quick barbaric raids of slaughter, destruction and kidnap.
In order to do that it took 250 years. Iraq is better, though. They already know the Law, they already have some regular system of justice -- and up until 1930 or so they were an orderly country. That's only a few generations of bad work to undo.
Still, five years ain't enough. Might need twenty.
A plan to massively increase efficiency, liquefy coal, use bio-based resources to the greatest extent possible and tap all of the nuclear, wind and solar power available. Since that will take time, the US should tap into these final reserves as an “investment” policy to increase supply enough to make life tough for those regimes from whom we currently import oil. If the price dropped enough, many would collapse. And yes, America would have to tax gasoline to counter the demand affects of a lower price. My suggestion is for a income tax rebate at the end of the year. So the tax is paid at the pump, but given back at the end. Because you really cannot trust politicians with more money.
Yeah, its more complicated than that, but it is not impossible. Going to the moon was impossible before someone decided to challenge America to do it.
As John pointed out in post 9 Oil is fungible.
The only way to affect the price is to increase supply or reduce demand.
I am suggesting both - but that would require government meddling with the American market through a tax scheme.
It is neither unprecedented nor problematic if total revenue does not actually increase.
I will repeat my suggestion for a gas tax that can be written off from income taxes at year’s end. This way small businesses are not hurt and consumers can still decide for themselves. However the actual price at the pump would lead most to choose to burn less fuel i.e. fund fewer Russiand and Iranians.
If you think the mess we are in now is bad, just wait until the inevitable do-over.
NRO title for this article: Whose War Is It Anyway?
The Democrats' excuse-making just doesn’t cut it.
Victor Davis Hanson Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
And, if we had the courage to actually think of the benefits to America of a reconstructed Iraq a la S Korea or Japan, that would be more appealing than dire predictions of a regional civil war if we left.
/rant
I think the Bush admin has been so fearful of the charge of “Imperialism” that they have not used the argument that a stable democratic Iraq will be of great benefit to the region. Since our only ally in the Middle East is a country with a name that is not even used by its surrounding countries, it is a real tightrope for us to proclaim that we want to create another ally.
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.