Posted on 08/05/2006 6:14:01 AM PDT by Pokey78
You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political parties you have.
We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly defeatist) smugness.
But at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight.
It's become clear, by contrast, that the Democratic party doesn't really want to fight jihadism. It's just too difficult. Last week the entire Democratic congressional leadership sent President Bush a letter on Iraq. The Democrats didn't chastise the administration for failing to do what it takes to achieve victory there. They didn't call for a larger military, or for more troops in Iraq, or for new tactics. Rather, they seemed to criticize the (belated) redeployment of troops "into an urban war zone in Baghdad." And they complained that "there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort"--as if these are the keys to success.
But success is not really what the Democrats have in mind. They want retreat--under the guise of "reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq." As they say, "In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained." So it's time to begin getting out.
Well, one might say, at least most Democratic members of Congress haven't criticized Bush for his support of Israel against Hezbollah. But these members are lagging indicators. Consider the views of the Democratic party at large.
Last week, in a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked the following (tendentious) question: "As you may know, Israel has responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's actions are justified or not justified?" And these were the results: In all, 43 percent of respondents found Israel's actions "justified, not excessively harsh"; 16 percent "justified, but excessively harsh"; and 28 percent "unjustified." What was the party breakdown? Among Republicans: 64 percent justified, 11 percent justified but too harsh, and 17 percent unjustified. Among Democrats: 29 percent justified, 20 percent justified but too harsh, and 36 percent unjustified.
The Times also asked which of the following statements comes closer to your view: "The United States should continue to align itself with Israel," or "The United States should adopt a more neutral posture." Republicans: 64 percent say align with Israel, 29 percent want a more neutral posture; Democrats: 39 percent say align with Israel, 54 percent want a more neutral posture. So even with a centrist Israeli government that is responding to a direct attack and not defending settlements in the territories, Democrats have adopted a "European" attitude toward Israel.
And toward the United States. That is the meaning of Connecticut Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman. What drives so many Demo crats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.
There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps. But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one.
Bump.
I do not favor throwing Rumsfeld under the bus and the idea that he can be replaced by Liberman is ludicrous. Liberman has no experience running a big organization.
How about this for as a new slogan for the dims "I love Jews, but hate Israel." It makes as much sense as supporting the troops and being against the war on terrorism. Also, "hating the war in Iraq" makes as much sense as having said in WW2: I hate the war in North Africa, it didn't attack us, the Japs did and FDR hasn't caught Hirihito yet." or "I hate the war in Burma, but...."
Folks have lost site of the larger scale of the war we are in.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
That's pretty funny.
Anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-Joe, anti-individual, anti-freedom, anti-life: The Democrat Crime Syndicate.
Interesting article by Kristol. I don't agree that we need to make a stopped clock The Secreatary of Defense.
The Democrats fear Americans with pickup truck and shot guns.
The Democrats fear Americans that believe in God.
The Democrats do NOT fear Islamists with RPG's, WMD.....
The Democrats do NOT fear Islamists who refer to us as infidels.
--
As whacko as I sound, and I know it sounds far out there; I am not that far off base. Look at Clinton and his games with our Constitutional right to bear arms, Ruby Ridge, Waco TX yet what was AQ doing, Iran, Iraq, Hebollah…..? The liberal looks at the world upside down and claims he’s ‘intellectual’ because of this.
Ruby Ridge happened under Bush the Elder.
Tendentious is an understatement. Like there was peace in Middle East until Hezbollah started launching rockets for no reason whatsover.
Hey, Mr. Chief Neocon! You asked for this war. In fact, you demanded it.
You ignored all the warnings and made stupid statements like "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
But now it's Bush's fault because he doesn't have a strategy to overcome what YOU said wasn't going to be a problem. Man, it takes some cojones (or a very short memory) to write that.
The truth that Rumsfeld couldn't say is that first of all, Iraq will have a complex solution, and one in which, though they won't be fighting anymore, US forces will remain there for at least a decade. Much like they did in Germany.
Second, no matter what he might say, it would just be fuel for the election fire. Literally, if he says anything but gobbledygook niceties, it will be horribly abused.
Rumsfeld: "We are planning to do 'A'".
The MSM: "That's wrong, you should do 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'??? Are you mad?"
Hillary: "Doing 'A' just means they have no plan."
Murtha: "Nooo! They have to do 'K'. That's just something I though up the other day, but it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE."
Dean: "Rumsfeld should resign for even suggesting 'A'."
Daily KOS: "Bush should be impeached for saying 'A'. It means that he is corrupt and eeevil!"
Al Gore: "No. No. No. Bush must do 'X*J+L/Q', or it will destroy the atmosphere. Which would be bad."
etc., ad nauseum. Is it any wonder that Rumsfeld didn't say anything of moment?
More like: 'Demi-rats'
The New Democrats are just openly stupid.
You're right,
August (Ridge) /November (Election outcome) were the dates.
Still - Ask most liberals if they saw Saddam as a threat and the answer is no. Then ask him about gun control. The MSM loooooooooves stories about Aryan racists, but talks about the "religion of peace". You have Clinton throwing his own personal lawyers on gun control and AQ doing what they want in Somalia and trying to bring the WTC down in 1993 already. They are whacko’s but consider themselves ‘intellectual’.
That's great - I'm going to steal it and use it quite frequently!
Or, why not Mayor Bloomberg? Or Hillary Clinton? The crossover vote is there, and there's no reason to do stupid things to grab it.
At the risk of highjacking the thread, a distinction between Ruby Ridge and Waco is that Ruby Ridge was government agents on the scene going over the line whereas Waco was Clinton green-lighting Janet Reno to go in there with tanks and attack the compound, resulting the deaths of some 80+ men, women and children.
Where was the media and the Europeans on this "war crime" resulting in the deaths of innocent children?
Sounds like a plan to me!
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.