Congress, State Lawmakers and down to city lawmakers on both the Republican and Democrat parties have given America away to special interest groups. The war and immigration legislation are two top issues that they do not want to solve as it benefits their special interest lobbyists versus what America used to stand for. We are a safe haven for lawbreakers now, not a safe haven for morals and ethics.
If any of the Democrats is elected our Al Queda enemies will have his (or her) measure. A demonstrated lack of will and a willingness to retreat in the face of minor adversity (made major by a hyperbolic press) will be what they see. Three thousand warfighter deaths over four years from a population of 300 million is minor by any historical perspective. If a democrat showing this lack of will and resolve is elected we will face attacks everywhere we are resented... stand by
Stop fighting terrorists in Iraq and we’ll be fighting them in the streets of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Here is the key to real long-term strategy. America needs to stop buying oil from its enemies. A combination of drilling in the short-term and alternatives / efficiency standards as part of a crash long-term program would seem like a very reasonable thing to do.
Sure glad that that was the main thrust of Dick Cheney's energy strategy . . . oh wait. (Insert picture of W. kissing Saudi)
What the Indians needed, as we now can see, is to be regularized under the Law -- to toss off their ancient habits of quick barbaric raids of slaughter, destruction and kidnap.
In order to do that it took 250 years. Iraq is better, though. They already know the Law, they already have some regular system of justice -- and up until 1930 or so they were an orderly country. That's only a few generations of bad work to undo.
Still, five years ain't enough. Might need twenty.
NRO title for this article: Whose War Is It Anyway?
The Democrats' excuse-making just doesn’t cut it.
Victor Davis Hanson Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
/rant
The idea of war seems heroic and historic before and after a war, but during the war it is horrific. Many people of weak character were for the war before then against the war.
rev9iew
There was no change of heart - the heart was not the organ involved. What evolved was a war so nearly won that an adversarial position became safe enough and politically advantageous for certain of the Dems to adopt. It did, after all, help win a majority in Congress.
The question now is having attained majority status, what to do with it? The safety of the adversarial position depended greatly on being in minority; that is, on being able to criticize without bearing a responsibility for the outcome. That is gone now, although the more strident of the antiwar faction seems particularly slow in realizing the potential cost of being held responsible for what the country in general regards as a negative outcome, but that they do not. In short, losing the war or the appearance of loss was an acceptable outcome so long as it resulted in a gain of political power. The latter has changed.
That accounts for an achingly unsuccessful and obvious attempt to rewrite the history of the war's antecedents. There never was a Kuwait invasion, Saddam was an enlightened leader, women had great rights in Iraq, there were never any WMD's, etc, etc - this sort of silly revisionism is the only way the antiwar faction of the Dems can maintain its sense of rectitude but it cuts out anyone on record as knowing better. That would include Kerry and Clinton, and if they now feel a little abused by this determined denial of historical fact that is perfectly understandable (and their just dessert, but that is another issue). Hence the antiwar faction's enthusiasm for Obama, who is relatively immune from criticism from that point of view.
This is simply the logical conclusion of a determined refusal to accept responsibility, a determined clinging to minority status and the freedom of criticism that is derived from that. The antiwar faction wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to propose radical solutions and blame any negative results on Bush, who, since any Democratic culpability is ignored or defined away, now bears the sole responsibility for getting everyone in the situation in the first place. And that is simply not going to do, and the wiser heads in the Democratic leadership know it. Those of lesser wisdom are happily leading the party toward a precipice, and unfortunately as the majority they will be leading the country there as well.