The Defeatist Democrats [New York Sun Editorial....]

The New York Sun ^

[Sub-Driver]

The Defeatist Democrats

New York Sun Editorial March 9, 2007

After months of denying that they were about to cut off funding for the troops or impose a rigid timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress are about to do just that. It's not entirely surprising for those who lived through the Vietnam War and have watched with dismay the isolationist drift of the Democratic Party, particularly its congressional wing identified with George McGovern, since then. What is surprising, though, is what our Eli Lake is reporting are to be the triggers for an American retreat. Mr. Lake reports that the bill being proposed by the Democrats in the House would impose a retreat by America if Iraqis fail to attain such targets as "the repeal of a de-Baathification law and the passage of a plan to share the country's oil revenues."

Well, that about sums it up. When the Democrats controlled the White House during the Nuremberg trials, they didn't object to de-Nazification. When the Democrats controlled Congress during the end of the Cold War, they didn't object to the processes of lustration that occurred in the former Warsaw Pact countries and that Tina Rosenberg memorably described in her National Book Award-winning volume, "The Haunted Land: Facing Europe's Ghosts After Communism." American troops were on the ground in Europe, their lives on the line, in both cases. The appropriate level of punishment of those involved with a regime as evil as Saddam's Baath Party, or, for that matter, the Nazis or the communists or the apartheid regime in South Africa is certainly a topic on which reasonable people can differ, and different people may give different weight to the sometimes-divergent goals of justice and reconciliation.

[Kay Ludlow]

That does about sum it up, doesn't it?

[LZ_Bayonet]

"Morris Amitay, a Scoop Jackson Democrat who is vice chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Affairs, did everyone a service yesterday when he asked Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party's frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race and one of its most hawkish voters on foreign policy issues, whether America "should win" this war that we are in. Mrs. Clinton would not say yes. Mr. Amitay told The New York Sun's Russell Berman afterward, "I was very disappointed that in the war we are now in against a ruthless enemy she could quote President Roosevelt to the effect that we are all in this struggle, but she would not say whether we should win it."

This is important. I'd like to see a video of the question and her answer.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

I am stunned, but not surprised, by her "non-comment"! She is, after all, part of the "Party of Defeat"!

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Her Heinousness is in a tough spot. She has already started running to the Left because of Obama, and she has to keep the moonbats happy, so she can't say "Yes". On the other hand, to openly say "No" will definitely destroy her against the GOP candidate next year.

If the GOP does come up with a video of this, though, you can bet people will be seeing it in ads come Fall '08(along with the Selma speech, which makes ears bleed), but that's IF she wins the RAT nomination. I don't think that's a given anymore.

Obama is giving her a lot tougher fight than anybody expected, and is putting a big dent in her fundraising. The Clinton smear machine is already putting out stuff on him that they were probably saving for next year. That tells me they consider him a serious threat, and the last few polls indicate he is.