Posted on 12/06/2006 8:02:58 AM PST by Howlin
Live on cable now...
Because that is what they are doing
They are playing politics in the middle of a dead serious war
Don't you know people like Rumsfeld have no credibility? Things have to be regurgitated by aging judges, Clintonite defense lawyers and wanna-be celebrities to have credibility.
A cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine in the war on terrorism has been to take the fight to the terrorists on their own turf, and to directly challenge the nihilism of the Islamists by planting a stable and democratic state right in the heart of the Middle East. This democratic state would be a place where freedom and hope would flourish, and provide an appealing alternative to the despair and inhumanity that is rampant in extreme Islam, thereby eventually consigning Islamic terrorism to the ash heap of history.
It is a noble strategy. It's a strategy based on optimism, under girded by the belief that within the heart of every human being beats a desire for freedom and dignity. Backed by the intellectual strength of Natan Sharansky’s treatise The Case for Democracy, empowered by a sense of destiny confirmed by the lightening-quick campaign to depose Saddam, and the eventual conducting of free elections in Iraq which first elected a provisional government resulting in the adoption of a constitution, and then the election of a permanent popularly elected government, it appeared that Bush’s policy could not fail.
But somewhere between three successful elections and the fulfillment of the dream of a free and hopeful model in the Muslim world, something’s gone wrong. We see it in the never-ending violence in Iraq. It’s seen in the lost hope of American voters. We see it in the fact that the Democrat Party won the majority in Congress by campaiging on a failure of will. We see it in the architects and supporters of the original policy – the neo-conservative promoters of American Excellence – bailing. And most disturbingly, we see it in the desperate act of bringing in a band of foreign policy “realists” – the kind of “experts” whose “realistic” view of the way the world works resulted in us getting blind-sided on 9/11 in the first place – to figure a way out of what appears to be a quagmire after all. Somewhere along the line the Bush Doctrine has been replaced by the George H.W. Bush Doctrine, with James Baker as the acting Secretary of State and designer of a revised, more “realistic” foreign policy that assumes that everyone in the world thinks like a Yale graduate.
What’s most painful about the current and never-ending spectacle of violence in Iraq isn’t just the ongoing carnage, but having to watch the slow death of an optimistic policy and strategy that once appeared it was headed for success. With the “realists” back in charge, we’re undoubtedly going back to a policy of “strategic balance” between despots in the Middle East, and how long will it be before Syria and Iran are approached to become “partners” in bringing Iraq under control? Syria and Iran! Unbelievable – the two Hitlerian states assumed by pretty much everyone (except the "realists") to being responsible for fueling the mayhem in Iraq; the two states which, even before the Coalition deposed Saddam, dedicated themselves to strangling democratic reform in Iraq while it was still in the cradle. This is supposedly going to be our “exit strategy” – begging two of the biggest state supporters of terrorism to please help ease us out of the mess. I'm sure they will gladly help us.
While Bush’s effort to combat terrorism by planting democracy in the Islamic world was a noble strategy, and probably worth a go, the real problem with the policy is the now-evident fact that democracy and Islam are about as compatible as oil and water. History has recorded that democracy took root in the west because democracy, freedom, a recognition and respect for the basic rights of man, flourished in the Judeo-Christian ethos of the west. Democracy grew because it was planted in good soil. In Iraq, democracy, freedom, respect for life, respect for the rights of the individual, respect for women, freedom of thought, freedom of association, may ultimately be choked-out because the soil is bad. Such things as freedom, respect for life, respect for the individual, freedom of expression, self-determination, and so forth, are anathema to Islam. Islam is a false religion. Their god is Satan. They worship oppression and glory in death. How could democracy take root in such an environment? Sharansky and Bush may be right to a point – that in the heart of every human beats a desire for freedom and dignity. But the prerequisite here is that it must beat in a human heart, and what Islam breeds is inhumanity.
I don’t fault Bush for his optimism. The leftist naysayers will gloat that they were right all along, but they were never right. Their strategy for confronting Islamic terror was to roll up into a fetal position and question why they hate us. Regardless of Bush's good intentions, it becomes clearer with each passing day that optimism is a western virtue, something completely lacking in the soul of the Muslim world. How does one “reform” a cancer? It appears we need a new strategy for combating Islamic terror. But I’m not sure we have it in us to do what probably needs to be done.
I'm just sitting here wondering those same things.
I am damn near despondent.
The terrorists will come for us now.
Still "white" I see. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
The group was created by Congress. I assume appointed by them as well.
They aren't making decisions. They are making recommendations. If they act like they are in charge of something, they just got carried away with themselves like the 9-11 Commission did.
Their report can be picked apart. Everyone is free to reject all of it, part of it, accept one minor detail and ignore the rest, accept a significant part but reject one of their most "key" or sacrosanct (in their minds) points, etc.
It really stands or falls on its own, point by point. They deserve no free pass on anything it says just because of who they are.
You're way off. Major Garrett is one of the best their is, and noting that 'victory' is missing from the report was actually a brilliant way to quickly illustrate what appears to be one of the fatal flaw in this report, which is its too low assumptions and ceiling of expectations/options. This report appears to be a manual for withdrawal, not winning. Garrett's question puts the whole report in context.
What nuttiness.
And now, let's hear from the DNC-spokesman, Podesta
Good one..
Leon PANETTA is on this commission? Holy cow!!
Q: how will you act from now on to get the President to do what you say he must do. In other words, how are you going to force him to do all these things and how can we in the media help.
"Can you imagine the media or the political opposition doing this to Roosevelt?"
How about, "Can you imagine the media or the political opposition doing this to Clinton?"
I'm sure it will to "i told you so" all over the MSM tonight.
This country is headed for a Civil War with these jerks!
Bull sh**!! The media & it's lies have done that!!!!
I'm seriously considering going to Australia. I figure if I can get about five million like-minded conservatives to come with me, we'll be a superpower inside a generation.
And no border issues!
The fact that Panetta is on this commission makes the whole thing a sham.
I can see it now - Nancy Pelosi will claim that words like Victory and Win are hate speech since no one wants to be the loser.
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.