Posted on 03/05/2005 4:11:36 AM PST by beyond the sea
A senior Clinton administration national security official offered a stunning admission this week, confessing during a national television interview that Democrats are secretly rooting for the Bush administration's war of terrorism to fail.
In comments largely overlooked by the mainstream press, former Clinton National Security Council member Nancy Soderberg discussed the recent outbreak of democracy in the Middle East with "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart.
"As a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress," Soderberg observed, before quickly adding, "But as an American, you hope good things would happen."
But Soderberg quickly undermined her own caveat, further suggesting that the more success America has in defeating global terrorism, the worse it is for Democrats.
After noting that the U.S.'s stunning foreign policy success followed the toppling of one of the three members of the axis of evil, Soderberg offered:
"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And when Klintoon was president I would always compliment him when things went right for him - which wasn't often - but I made a point of telling my kids what he did and why it was good.... like welfare reform. I know it wasn't HIS idea, but I tried to always make a point to tell my kids when Democrats did anything right. I didn't want to be always negative about them, and I always explained to them that whatever is best for the country is a good thing.
Reagan never cared who got the credit when good things happened. He was so mature and intelligent.
Plaque on Reagan's desk
“There is no limit to how far a man can go,” read a plaque in his office, “so long as he is willing to let someone else get the credit.”
Ms Soderberg confirmed what Rush has been saying for years, What's good for America is bad for Democrats.
If she wants to get out of the fiction genre I suggest her next book be title The Clinton Myth: The Misuse of American Might.
That's why we call them RATs.
And in Oct. Nov. during the election campaign I worked at local Repub. HQ. We would NEVER attack or vandalize a Democ. HQ yet several of ours were attacked, vandalized, robbed. And when a Democ. came into our office and asked where their HQ was, or asked about ballots or election polling places, we were always polite and told them. We don't wish anything bad for them. Most of my Okie family is democrat.
But enough bailing out, they will care.
I tear up and toss the AARP stuff. I should send it back to them and give them a piece of my mind...
That is my thought as well.
I wish we could start a push here on FR to collectively stop the AARP agenda.
I guess hitting them in the wallet is the only way to go, but they have a huge head start.
Sadly, these people are no longer Democrats, they're Al-Qaedacrats.
Flim flam artist they are.
Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's "Best Of The Web" on Wed. Mar. 2nd
'But as an American . . .'
We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of "The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might" (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it:
Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that--
Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding.
Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--?
Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.
Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something.
Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.
Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.
Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--
Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--
Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.
Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.
Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.
Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.
Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--
Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!
Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--
Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs?
Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah.
Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive?
Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.
Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes.
We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top).
She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism.
Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation."
Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues.
I think that would be usanext.org
What's bad for the country is good for Democrats and what's good for the country is bad for Democrats. Rush has been saying it for years.
Beyond sick. I doubt Ms. Soderberg would question her rooting interest in this war even if she were viewing a mushroom cloud rise over her own city.
Thanks for the transcript.
No prob PGalt. I figured it would put the conversation this Witch had with Mr. Chuckles in better focus.
Dittos on that, OldFriend.
I am still stunned that anyone would oppose having a portion of their retirement in stocks and bonds, rather than an empty promise from the govt.
These Democrats oldsters (and some youngsters) are so nutty they would rather rely on a POSSIBLE promise from some future government to pay less benefits when they could have REAL LIFE stocks and bonds in their personal savings acount RIGHT NOW.
It is a lonely life in Oklahoma if you are a Democrat!!!!!
They will catch on soon!!!!!!
And they have to pay the postage!!!!!
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.