Skip to comments.Desperate for Defeat (The Democrats' greatest fear is an America that's winning.)
Posted on 11/21/2005 9:51:21 PM PST by nickcarraway
The foreign policy of the Democratic Party verges on deliberate defeatism: afraid of American "dominance" in the world, many Democrats would prefer that America tie wars than win them. Because they would like to see America put in its place -- this isn't an overstatement; just listen to the Democrats' constant complaints about America's lone "superpower" status -- their contribution to the war effort is defined by deep ambivalence. They don't necessarily want their country to lose, but they are not so sure if they want it to win either. They often define this ambivalence as "patriotism": we're henpecking and sapping American military morale for the country's own good, they'll say, lest it become too "arrogant."
As they did during the Cold War, the Democrats see their role in the war on terrorism as that of harsh, inflexible monitors of their own country. "Patriotism" thus translates into endless temporizing, moral equivalence, and a campaign to place suicidal limitations on their country's military leadership. All of this is accompanied by a gross lack of proportion and perspective and a dilettantish indifference to the consequences of a lost war.
Democrats will tell the military to fight with one arm tied behind its back from the comfortable spot of standing behind it. From this safe vantage point, they can offer up such fine sentiments as: although a "democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand." (Al Gore, quoting someone else, used that line in a speech.) Democrats love this high-minded and windy talk, especially since someone else is doing the difficult work of preventing terrorists from cutting off their hands.
It is striking how black-and-white, how totally lacking in empathy, Democrats become when their own country's military soldiers, who are operating under very tricky circumstances, are under discussion. The Democrats' weakness for "situation ethics" suddenly disappears and they become know-it-alls on the moral particulars of military life. Certain acts are intrinsically wrong, they thunder, even as they argue in every other context that no such acts exist.
The Democrats warm to this discussion of human rights in direct proportion to the evil of the human being whose rights are under examination: a party that has never seen abortion as a human rights abuse is worried that terrorists are standing for too long and aren't sleeping in properly conditioned rooms.
CIA director Porter Goss recently made a sensible distinction between tough interrogation and torture, a distinction which the Democrats dismiss with easy indignation and false piety (this is a party that considers the death penalty for mass murderers to be "cruel and unusual punishment"; there is no reason to trust its definition of "torture" ), but a distinction which is essential to military victory.
"An enemy that's working in an amorphous network that doesn't have to worry about a bunch of regulations, chain of command, rule of law or anything else has got a huge advantage over a stultified, slow-moving, bureaucratic, by-the-book" army, Goss has said. "So we have to, within the law and within all the requirements of our professional ethics in this profession, develop agility. And that means putting a lot of judgment in the hands of individuals overseas."
When Democrats reject such distinctions and say the CIA interrogations are making America "like the terrorists," they simply reveal their ignorance of America's enemy. The Democrats' soft definition of torture would make Al Qaeda agents laugh.
The Democrats' tendency to hype with great melodrama the evil of their country while remaining clueless about the monstrosities of the enemy is connected to their agnostic foreign policy: Were they to see the enemy too clearly, they would have to support a more dominant role for America than they wish. Wanting to put America in its place on the international stage, with "parity" but not advantage over others, they have to portray threats to America very benignly. This explains how the Democrats could stumble into the absurd position of saying that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was terrorist-free and that he just wasn't the sort of person to associate with Muslim terrorists. This whitewash of pre-war Iraq has become essential to the Democrats' assertion that America could have won the war on terrorism while ignoring one of its loci -- an assertion no more persuasive than the Democrats' claim that Marxist expansionism in Central America had nothing to do with the Soviet threat.
Given the nonstop talk about what the Bush administration didn't find in Iraq, it is high time Bush officials remind people of what they did find there: a chaotically administered, out-of-control weapons program that was easily accessible to terrorists. As inspector David Kay reported, Iraqi scientists up until the beginning of the war were "actively working to produce a biological weapon using the poison ricin"; "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq. And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities....The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country -- and no central control." Iraq under Saddam Hussein was arguably more dangerous than even Bush had assumed, Kay said: "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war."
The Democrats, ignoring this, and working themselves into a fever over Iraq's perilous condition even as they simultaneously argue no such dangerous condition existed under Saddam Hussein, are rooting at best for an American tie in this front of the war on terrorism. But a tie against terrorists is a defeat, a defeat which only a twisted Democratic foreign policy that fears too much American success could pass off as a victory.
This is not new to the Democrats.
Harry Truman did it in Korea.
LBJ did it in Vietnam.
Clinton did it in Somalia, and Kosovo.
Normal to them.
The liberal DemoncRATS are sick Communists. They are losers. Oh, and TRAITORS too!
Our "lone" Super Power status? Yes!! Now RATS, yer #2 just STFU and STAY that way. You'll really enjoy it, and the USA will be better off. GO AWAY RED RATS!!!!
Almost a good article, but even this author gives too much credit to the Democrats when he says:
"They don't necessarily want their country to lose, but they are not so sure if they want it to win either."
From their actions it's clear that Dems DO WANT THE US TO LOSE, and lose badly.
9/11, never again, support the war, support the troops, and, if you do, support the President
The Democrats are almost a fifth column in this country.
I look at their talking heads on the various tv shows and think, "If these guys get their way, the US will be absolutely humilated. More painful than that, a large portion of my countrymen (IE the Democrats) will be clinking wine glasses like they just won an election. Their attitude is obviously, 'The country as well as the concept of freedom and human rights can be be damned, as long as Bush looks bad.'
Don't get me wrong. Bush is at fault, too. He is a terrible communicator in the crunch. The average dude doesn't follow all the news closely and Bush just can't reach that person with his glib remarks and off handed sayings. I wish to God he had Tony Blair's flair with the English language. He's a good man but, let's get some more prepared speeches in front of him, ok.
I also blame the Iraqi's. We've paid a huge price for their infant democracy. So many of us want it to succeed not only for the sake of them but, for the sake of freedom. While they certainly enjoy what they now have (75% voted, Saddam gone, free press, etc), their strange sense of pride and the ruthlessness of their politics makes them awkward partners. How about some thanks? We're hanging on a line out here with these Dems at our throats! Must you see every thing as a way to leverage President Bush into giving you more? Throw us a line, already!
Finally, and in addition to the above, the new Prime Minister (to be elected as a result of the December 15th elections) better give President Bush some props in public. He also better get his guys in place. Freedom needs him to be strong....which is what makes me very nervous right now. If he leaves President Bush hanging (figurative speaking), the new Prime Minsiter will certainly be left hanging (literaly speaking!).
The article is excellent, but The American Prowler website is crap. You can't even email them to clean it up or forward an article without all the bull-sh!t attached.
I've been to Iraq. Before Team America arrived, it was a land of flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
I laughed so hard at that movie, I almost hurt myself. I rented the DVD to watch the "behind the scenes" features, which were almost as good as the movie.
Excellent article. Every single paragraph has a point that needs to be made to our citizens.
Do the democrats think that Saddam Hussein became LESS of a threat after 9/11? Were we supposed to trust the Up-to-its-Eyeballs-in-the-Oil-for-Food-scandal-UN to take care of Saddam?
Are they going to now, after we already have troops in harms way, after elections have been held, and while the Iraqi's are just starting to take control of their country from the terrorists- Are they really going to go back and say that it would have been better off with Saddam in charge?
It's too bad the Republican's let this go as long as they have- they should know by now that there is NO PRESS in America to tell people what's going on Iraq. And that the propagandists who call themselves "the press" operate 24/7 to destroy our war effort.
Hopefully they finally understand the scope and magnitude of dem propaganda- every movie, every TV show- every newspaper article- every news broadcast, every magazine article- every music radio broadcast- in every class room at all education levels elementary, Jr. High, High school, and college classroom, and nearly every movie and music star, spouts democrat propaganda- against the Iraq war, against our troops, and against our president. It is constant 24/7.
I am not the least bit surprised that this constant barrage of negativity has resulted in loss of public support for president Bush and the Iraq war- in spite of the succeses- elections being held..exc.. Succeses are not covered AT ALL. The only thing people have heard is the constant "quagmire" and "Viet Nam" statements of the dems.
The bully pulpit has been silent. President Bush has not addressed the nation about what's going on in Iraq, and reminded people of why we are there. I'd like to see him address the nation more, and go on the tv talk shows too- He is a likeable person. He has to ask the American people to stand by our troops and our war effort. It's the only way to get through the constant propaganda of the dems.
The ENEMEDIA and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to help the terrorists win! Their treasonous behavior towards our President and our troops is unforgivable!
bump to the top
I agree. President Bush is a TERRIBLE communicator. He mumbles and stutters constantly. I will say that he is very good at impromptu discussions with our military. Thank God for that. Too bad he does not have the stones in getting tough with the terrorists... MOABs, nukes....
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.