Posted on 03/02/2002 3:27:50 PM PST by Pokey78
It had to happen eventually. Last week saw the first attempt by the political opposition to mount a real attack on the war on terrorism. On Wednesday senators started subjecting Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, to withering questions about the expanding war effort. We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies, not so good at developing exit strategies, opined Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, thats going to keep us going beyond doomsday, he went on. How long can we afford this? We went (to Afghanistan) to hunt down the terrorists. We dont know where Osama Bin Laden is nor whether he is alive or not. We dont know where Mullah Omar is hiding . . . When will we know we have achieved victory? Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina chimed in: Weve got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion. He went on, characterising the Bush administrations argument as: Since weve got a war, weve got to have deficits and the war is never going to end. He predicted that sooner or later, this town is going to sober up. By Thursday, in what had the appearance of a co-ordinated campaign, the Democratic Senate majority leader Tom Daschle put the boot in: Clearly, weve got to find Mohammed Omar, weve got to find Osama Bin Laden and weve got to find other key leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, or we will have failed. Failed. Thats a trial balloon for an argument this autumn. Senator Joseph Biden, one of the biggest blowhards in Washington, added more diplomatically: I think the administration is rightfully proud of how far theyve brought us from September 11. But I also think theres a little hubris at work here. Whats going on? Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff? So far, the latter scenario seems the most likely. The latest polls show massive American public support for the war on terror and huge backing for taking the war to terrorist-sponsoring states aiming to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the enemy. A Fox News poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, shows some subsidence of urgency among the public about the war, terrorism, security and related issues. But the American people still believe these related issues comprise the biggest problem the country faces, and should remain the main task of the government. Eighty-two per cent still approve of the military action taken in response to September 11. That number has subsided slightly from 89% a month ago but its still a margin of support nobody but a masochistic politician would counter. Its also true that the latest numbers show President Bushs approval rating moderating somewhat. But its still 77%. Last October it was 80%. Thats not exactly a collapse. And its still historically unprecedented. The reason for the Democrats shift is, in part, desperation. Over the past year they have watched helplessly as Bush has neutralised them on some key domestic issues, and soared ahead of them because of the war. Look at the poll results on what were, until recently, Democratic strong points: the economy, education and healthcare. The Democrats have long hoped that they could make gains in the upcoming congressional elections by ceding the war issue to Bush but taking him on domestically. Now theyre beginning to believe that strategy wont work. The economy is pulling out of a recession and, in fact, may never have been in a recession in the first place. Numbers released last week showed the American economy growing by 1.4% in the fourth quarter of last year. On the same day, the Democrats put the emphasis back on the war. Coincidence? I dont think so. Last July some 55% of Americans said they were very or somewhat optimistic about the economy. Last week that number had risen to 66%. The opposition is rattled. Bushs education bill, passed last year with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy, has also neutralised a key Democratic issue and the parties are close to even on the matter. Only on pensions do the Democrats have a real lead, but it is outweighed by massive Republican margins on homeland security and defence policy. The polls also show Republicans as a party opening up a lead in congressional races for the first time in 15 years. So the Democrats have realised that if they dont dent Bushs war leadership, theyre doomed. They also realise that the impact of Bushs tax cut last year and increases in defence spending scheduled for the next four years mean there is almost nothing left for domestic spending the Democrats main tool for pleasing voters and appeasing their special interest groups. They feel trapped. They tried, with the aid of the media, to pin the Enron scandal on Bush. It didnt stick. So theyre trying something that can only be called desperate and enormously risky. The liberal intelligentsia is egging them on. The current issue of the liberal Washington Monthly bemoans the lack of aggression among Democrats. The Bush team can attack Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, lose $4 trillion of the surplus, and meet with campaign contributors whose company stock they own, and Democrats just watch, the magazines editor complains. And then theres Enron. Is there any doubt that if the situation were reversed, Republicans would be exploiting the scandal more aggressively? Would they have hesitated, as Democrats have, to frame Enron as a political scandal or to bombard the White House with subpoenas? Democrats cant afford to go all wobbly, especially now. The left-liberal American Prospects editor argued in his latest issue: The moment for bipartisan triumphalism and unquestioning support for a wartime commander in chief is over. Dissent should be back in fashion. Mainstream critics need to give voice to their private second thoughts, not just on Bushs dismal domestic programme or his odd global geography but on his dubious notion of permanent war. Is this the Democratic theme for the foreseeable future? Some Republicans are praying it is. They believe that if they can reinforce the notion that the Democrats are soft on terrorism and soft on defence, then a small margin in the congressional races this summer and autumn could become a rout in their favour. The house Republican whip, Tom DeLay, felt the need to issue only a one-word response to Daschles question on the conduct of the war: Disgusting. For what its worth, I think those Republicans are right. As long as the administration keeps its nerve, and as long as military competence continues, the Democrats could be handing Bush a political gift of massive proportions. The autumn elections may well be held as military action in Iraq reaches a critical point. If that happens, the Democrats could risk not only losing the Senate and the house, but also they could undo many post-Vietnam years devoted to persuading middle America that the party could be trusted on foreign policy. If I were Tom Daschle, Id be worried sick. Suicide isnt pretty for a political party; but the Democratic leadership, for short-term political reasons or for lack of any other viable strategy is contemplating it once again.
"Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff?"
Hey, wait a minute. That's all the Democrats are good at!
If you want term limits (as do I), the best way to achieve them is to reduce the Democrat party to a pitiful rump of itself in the next three elections (2002, 2004, 2006).
Perhaps, this will force the few remaining Democrats to rearrange their priorities, cleanse themselves of their moronic liberalism...and embrace term limits as a route back to power.
Okay, I understand that you are the same a$$-clown who was booted off yesterday for this same crap (you shouldn't use the same screen name pattern, you know). So, you thought you'd be cute and sign up yesterday under a different name. Cute. Okay, I suppose I'll have to deal with it.
At least before I go and tell JimRob that the trash needs to be taken out again.
At any rate, clueless DemocraticUnderground member, you fail to realize in all your ranting that we are in a state of permanent war with the terrorist international AND the states that sponsored them. You see, unlike the amateurish crowd that ran the White House during the past eight years, we Republicans understand that this is total war. We are up against an enemy that will use any, repeat, any weapon against our people. That includes nuclear devices.
As a Democrat, you cannot be expected to understand military affairs, so try to fathom this: the threat is not from al-Qaeda alone. It is also from any state, such as Iraq, that is trying to obtain Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq loves al-Qaeda, so that they might use them as a "cutout" to attack the United States with a WMD and maintain plausible deniability.
It is not a matter of killing bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, or Mullah Omar, although that would be nice. Rather it is a question of remaining on a permanent offensive until al-Qaeda is eliminated as a fighting force.
Now, clueless Democrat, go back to DU while you have the chance. Or at least, before I spank you again.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I'm not. FreepReaper is a brownshirt like the rest of the DU crowd. You can't reason with them; that I understand.
Which is why JimRob classifies them as "disruptors"
Be Seeing You,
Chris
It is called DIS-INCENTIVE or removing their MOTIVATION
PLEASE!! God gave you a brain, use it.
And Daschle wants to disrupt that sense of safety and control that the Bush Adminstration is providing? It WILL backfire.
ROTFLOL - my sentiments exactly!!
Excuse me, but that's the DEMOCRAT PARTY - because there is nothing democratic about them.
FreepReaper ---------- No current Freeper by that name.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Andrew Sullivan , click below: | ||||
click here >>> | Andrew Sullivan | <<< click here | ||
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) |
Well, I have to agree with him there. We've got troops in Korea, 50 years on, and we're still in Bosnia and Kosovo and.....
LOL That's exactly what I thought. The Dems must be having nightmares ... no, wait, they are the nightmare.
This statement is so telling - I am just about finished reading "At any Cost; How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election". It was good I waited a year to read it, because it is making my blood boil. But, I have read several times in this book that James Baker and a couple of other aides really let the dems have it. It seems to me, from this book, the Bush admin is well aware of what the dems are up to and well aware they are willing to do whatever it takes "at any cost". Every Republican should read this book!!
However, the President is committed to a new tone and I know he realizes they will use a tough tone against him.
I also believe what the author says about this war. The public is in favor of it and the media is not going to be able to change the public's mind. I truly believe the dems have sunk their own ship.
Rush was right again! The dems have become funnier the farther they get from power.
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.