Posted on 06/25/2005 6:33:07 AM PDT by Pokey78
DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A DEATH wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994.
The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning.
At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support,
Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security.
Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years. In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. Granted, McGovern's stance on national security wasn't the only factor in his loss, but it played a part. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily.
In 1988, the elder George Bush won after Democrat Michael Dukakis undermined his own credibility as a potential commander in chief by riding in a tank wearing silly-looking headgear. But in 1992, things were different. Bill Clinton and Al Gore avoided the national security trap. Clinton was hawkish toward China (later he mellowed) and Gore had voted for the Gulf war as a senator in 1991. They won. In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. In 2000, national security was a secondary issue and Al Gore won the popular vote and Democrats gained 5 Senate seats. In 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats. Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq. John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure.
Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.
FDR hired Eisenhower (conservative) to run his war.
Truman - had the courage to take out Japan - and it saved the world.
JFK was tough - but he also was wimpy - as the Bay of Pigs event proved.
LBJ totally screwed up Vietnam. He allowed politics to run the war - and they were the same people who hated the war. It's no wonder it was a mess. And with American "supporters" like Cronkite and Kerry .. it was doomed to be a failure.
There is no doubt in my mind that had Kerry been elected, Iraq would already have become our worst nightmare.
These dems are anti-war and they CANNOT lead the country during war time - and the WOT is a WAR whether or not the dems will admit it.
LOL!!!
Literally, as in U.S. instructors teaching extremist Islamists?
Or do you mean that our struggle against people who want to kill us in any case are motivated to train people to kill us?
Recall that Bill Clinton generally pursued a policy of appeasement of Islamists. He did what liberals now say (and have always said) to do, using police and civil court prosecution to combat terrorists. He prosecuted the men who exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993 as criminals, rather than as an international political matter. He gutted military and intelligence operations as gestures of goodwill and matters of policy and personal and political convictions.
Liberals then and now wanted to present the world a United States weak militarily and vague, ideologically, substituting vacillating relativism for moral and political conviction. It is appeasement: and the result of eight years of Clintonism and contemporary liberal foreign policy?
3,500 people killed by islamist terrorists in 9-11 attacks.
No, I do not think we could also be training mujahadeen we will eventually have to fight. Those who wish to kill us see inaction as vulnerability. They will train to kill us whether we are attacking them or not. Bill Clinton proved that to us.
The assumption Barnes makes is that the Democrat's position is contrived to win elections. Naw. What they really want is to bring down the Republic and construct their own socialist edifice on the ruins. Our national security institutions are an impediment to their project, and must be reduced. They tear down our national security institutions as much as they can get away with without losing too many elections.
The terrorist vision is to restore the Caliphate. Their base is the Islamic world. How much popular support they have is an open question - partly determined by how well or poorly they do in combat. I regularly read Al Ahram and Al Jazeera and occasionally look at other Muslim world publications, and at MEMRI and IRNA. The fight is played out there, too.
Looks like you played football...but it seems they didn't teach you to think.
For example, if you like our generals so much no doubt you agree with Shinseki and Ramsey Clark?
I can't speak for Husker, but Shinseki was a Clinton flunkie who's sole claim to fame was foisting those stupid black berets on the Army. As for Clark, he was LBJ's attorney general, not a military type. His anti-American stances are well documented.
Sorry about Clark. I was referring to the General who sought the Democratic nomination (can't remember his name).
But that's not the point. Husker implied that I wasn't qualified to question a general's judgement. I was betting that he's not shy about doing the same thing if a general says something not to his liking. Neither are you.
reader later
With all due respect to General Casey, the Baathist thugs and the Islamist terrorists in the so-called "insurgency" do have a very loyal base...........
................The Democrats and the Liberal news media.
Shinseki was a Clinton flunkie who's sole claim to fame was foisting those stupid black berets on the Army.
and here's the truth
I'd say I'm a hell of a lot better than you are at separating the truth from my political bias.
You're thinking of Wesley Clark. He only tried to start World War III in Kosovo against the Russians. His buddy, Bill Clinton, had to fire him over that one.
As for criticizing or praising generals, if you have an informed opinion, go for it.
Exactly.
"I regularly read Al Ahram and Al Jazeera"
So .. you're basing your opinions on those 2 publications - I know Al Jazeera is extremly leftist and anti-American - but I don't know anything about Al Ahram.
But .. if you're saying that Al Jazeera has any credibility - not with me they don't.
And the "base" is not the whole "Islamic world" - it's mostly the Wahabbi sect which perverts Islam - at least that's what I've been reading. I do not believe the majority of Iraqi's support the terrorists .. otherwise 8 million of them would not have risked death to vote. It's just that people are afraid to tell what they know - because it always meant death.
Also .. the day after a bomb goes off and Iraqi police or military are killed, there is a line of people to take their jobs.
Al Ahram is an Egyptian news source. I don't base my opinions of them but I do think about what they have to say. It's stupid not to.
And the "base" is not the whole "Islamic world" - it's mostly the Wahabbi sect which perverts Islam - at least that's what I've been reading.
Read Robert D. Kaplan's "The Ends of the Earth". The problems of Islam are far deeper and broader than a Wahabbi sect in Saudi Arabia.
I do not believe the majority of Iraqi's support the terrorists .. otherwise 8 million of them would not have risked death to vote
My guess is that the average Iraqi is pretty much like the average person anywhere; not political, a family man intent on survival and getting ahead. He'll take the easiest road to his goals.
Also .. the day after a bomb goes off and Iraqi police or military are killed, there is a line of people to take their jobs.
Probably their motives and understandings are varied. Some support our efforts completely. Some are just looking for a good job...or any job.
"My guess is that the average Iraqi is pretty much like the average person anywhere; not political, a family man intent on survival and getting ahead. He'll take the easiest road to his goals."
I'm stunned! A typical liberal viewpoint of people. Too stupid to realize that the liberals of the world know better than they do what is needed. How arrogant. No wonder you guys can't win elections - you have no respect for the voters.
I'm stunned! I expected better of you. Wolfowitz is interviewed in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly. That'll tell you how difficult it is to figure out what a whole population is thinking.
Too stupid to realize that the liberals of the world know better than they do what is needed.
On the contrary. The average person does not make politics the center of his life. I don't know whether that's smart or stupid...but it is a fact.
Just to be very clear about where I stand.
I don't think there's any doubt that the average person (most people) is ignorant, ill-informed, and stupid about his political behavior. The big question is whether the best and brightest do better.
The most optimistic answer is...a little.
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.