FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/01/2002 11:11:45 AM PDT by billorites
War is hell for left-of-centre parties. The British Labor Party is bitterly divided between those in favour of war with Iraq and those opposed to it. In the U.S. Democratic Party, meanwhile, it's even more complicated:
Faction A (the David Bonior option) is openly anti-war despite the party's best efforts to turn off their microphones. (Congressman Bonior appeared on TV live from Baghdad yesterday.)
Faction B (the Paul Wellstone option) is also anti-war but trying hard not to have to say so between now and election day in November.
Faction C (the Al Gore option) was pro-war when it was Bill Clinton in charge but anti-war now there's a Republican rallying the troops.
Faction D (the Hillary Rodham option) can go either way but remains huffily insistent that to ask them to express an opinion would be to "politicize" the war.
Faction E (the John Kerry option) can't quite figure which position alienates least of their supporters and so articulates a whole all-you-can-eat salad bar of conflicting positions and then, in a weird post-modern touch, ostentatiously agonizes over the "inherent risks" in each of them.
Faction F (the Jay Rockefeller option) thinks the priority right now should be to sit around holding inquiries into why the government ignored what it knew about al-Qaeda until they killed thousands of Americans. To Senator Rockefeller, it's vital that we now ignore what we know about Saddam so that we can get on with the important work of investigating the stuff we ignored last time round.
I may have missed a couple of dozen other factions. But, taken as a whole, the Democrats' current positions on Iraq form the all-time record multiple-contortionist pretzel display. A week ago they showed signs of finally remembering the First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. Instead of talking about why they don't want to talk about Iraq, they correctly figured that the easiest thing would be to give Bush some qualified, perfunctory support and hastily change the subject to something more favourable, such as the allegedly collapsing economy.
But then Al Gore rose from the dead to demonstrate that his political antennae are still as reliable as a 1948 TV with busted rabbit ears. Senate Democrats emerged from their hole to find their 2004 Presidential front-runner had dug them a brand new one. Remember Al? The first Android-American to run for President? The first candidate to win the popular vote without being popular? Al spent his riveting Gore '00 Presidential campaign in a fruitless pursuit for "the real Al Gore," launching a brand new "real Al Gore" every couple of weeks. But, in fairness to the Democratic Party's very own weapon of mass self-destruction, throughout all his multiple personalities Gore has been consistently tough on Saddam, ever since he was one of the few Democratic Senators to vote for the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
Not anymore, though. Last week, Al decided he's against a war with Iraq. Iraq, he argues, will distract us from Afghanistan. "Great nations," he intones, "do not jump from one unfinished task to another." America, says Al, can't fight Iraq and mop up Afghanistan at the same time: We can walk. Or we can chew gum. But we shouldn't try to jump from walking to gum-chewing until we're certain we've completed our walk.
Al's position is that, in Clintonian terms, it depends what the meaning of the word "war" is. If you mean the "war on terror," Al understands you can't be against that one. So his artful line is to insist that the "war on Iraq" is an entirely separate war from the "war on terror." If by the "war on terror" you mean spending the next five years doing DNA analysis on every surviving gram of cave dust from Tora Bora, well, then Al's cojones make Gengis Khan look like Susan Sontag.
Poor Al: The smart bomb who's so smart and always bombs. With his usual brilliant instincts, he chose to discard his pro-war stance just as his party's Senators were discarding their anti-war stance. Thus, the Democrats found themselves with the rare double problem of figuring out a way to spin both the obvious opportunism of their belated approval for the war and the obvious opportunism of Gore's belated opposition to it.
That's why a couple of days later the normally sober, soft-spoken, funereal Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the Senate, had a meltdown on the floor of the chamber. For months now, the calmly evasive Daschle has stuck to an unvarying routine on Iraq. He has "concerns." He has "grave concerns." His concerns have concerns. He's gravely concerned the President isn't concerned about some of his concerns and that concerns him all the more. Plus he's concerned that the Republicans may be politicizing the political process. Also, he has "questions." Thousands of questions: Has the President weighed all the options? Is the President aware of the risks? Could the President weigh all the options a couple more times? Is the President aware there may be some risks he's not aware of? When the President says he's weighing all the options, is that in pounds or bushels? Does the President know who put the bomp in the bomp-sh-bomp-sh-bomp, who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dong? Where have all the flowers gone? What kind of fool am I? If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why oh why can't I? In the immortal words of David Cassidy, how can I be sure in a world that's constantly changing?
The only real question was how long Daschle could keep this up before he cracked. On Wednesday, the South Dakotan choked up on the Senate floor and angrily demanded that Bush apologize to every Democratic veteran for implying the party was somehow soft on the war. The network correspondents hailed this as one of the most genuinely profoundly moving performances since Al Jolson last sang Sonny Boy or, alternatively, Bill Clinton held his final post-Monica "prayer breakfast" with his legions of "spiritual advisors." But, as someone who sat there howling with laughter as Senator Daschle blinked back tears, I think the guy's attack on the President was an example of what the shrinks call displacement: Bush only implied the Democrats were soft on the war; Gore positively boasted about it.
I hasten to add that in gleefully mocking Gore's inept cynicism and Daschle's sob-sister routine I'm certainly not impugning the patriotism of the Democratic leadership. Few of us will forget the stirring words last week of Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, summing up the party's current position:
"If the UN adopts the kind of resolution authorizing force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say: In the event the UN adopts a resolution authorizing member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that under those circumstances we should authorize force to enforce that UN resolution."
Got that? It's available from party headquarters on a bumper sticker, if you've got a tractor-trailer long enough.
The sight of the Democratic Party "wrestling" (as Al put it) with its conscience over Iraq is like some old-time carney freakshow: It's strangely compelling, but you can't help feeling it's cruel to put these misfits on public display. The Administration doesn't need to "politicize" the war. They're for it. So are the American people. The Democrats have had since the liberation of Kabul 10 months ago to work out a viable position. Instead, they seem to have run the various options past the focus-groups, identified the half-dozen least popular, and plumped for all of them.
Five weeks till election day and the Democratic Party's doing a dandy impression of one of those incompetent suicide bombers who accidentally self-detonates before he gets on the bus.
Somehow I already knew that!
This was an excellent post!
I need a cigarette after that one!
"If the UN adopts the kind of resolution authorizing force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say: In the event the UN adopts a resolution authorizing member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that under those circumstances we should authorize force to enforce that UN resolution."
Got that? It's available from party headquarters on a bumper sticker, if you've got a tractor-trailer long enough.
ROFLMAO!!!!
Carry_Okie -- You might enjoy this one!
It smells like victory.
One of our Freepers posted a similiar thread yesterday re his analysis of what is happening to the Rats. It is worth a few minutes of everyone's time: (Democratic Party gives new meaning to "spontaneous combustion" Written by Dr. McCoy | 9-30-02 | Leonard McCoy )
Rep. Mike Thompson, for instance, is a St. Helena Democrat whose new congressional district will include portions of the Sacramento Valley. Thompson, who currently is visiting Baghdad with two other House members, has received about 1,000 calls and letters about Iraq since late August.
Fewer than 2 percent of these support Bush's position, Thompson's spokeswoman Laura Dossa said. Those one-sided numbers, though, are shaped by a large number of anti-war comments coming from the college towns of Davis and Arcata, home of Humboldt State University.
I detest this communist and Islamakazi loving POS so much, I did not realize that he now has Wasp's old commy city, Davis in his district. With Arcata and Davis, no wonder he is acting like a full hate America combo commie and Islamakazi.
Actually he is a Watermelon/Islamakazi Clymer kisser!
Al's new campaign slogan!
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.