A Very Telling Omission - Democrats Take a Powder on Iraq—and the War on Terror

theOneRepublic Journal ^ | 12/19/05 | Carol Platt Liebau

[ParsifalCA]

If any more evidence were needed of the current sad state of the Democratic Party, that proof came last week. The day after successful elections in Iraq, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi announced that, in the party’s 2006 agenda, Democrats would simply decline to take a position on the war that had made that voting possible.

In other words, through either political cowardice or political calculation, one of America’s two major parties has simply refused to take a stand on the greatest issue of our time – the war in Iraq, the front line in the war on terror. The move is an implicit admission of the divisions that roil the Democratic Party, which encompasses everyone from Joe Lieberman on the right to the Move-On.org activists on the left – and is cynically designed to allow Democratic candidates maximum flexibility to assume the most politically popular position on the war wherever they’re running.

But the strategy, a cop-out that avoids any articulation of any principle, is also profoundly emblematic of Democratic behavior when it comes to the Iraq war. After all, there is some agreement among Democrats – as The Washington Post reported, “There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed.” But beyond that, they refuse to go.

The Democrats’ approach to the war in Iraq – and the war on terror more generally – is easily comprehensible, at least if it’s examined from a political rather than a policy viewpoint. After all, those who offer meaningful strategic advice run the risk of creating disagreement, or of being proved wrong... [more]

[caisson71]

As long as the Dims refuse to take a stand for anything and oppose everything, they act on their true beliefs.

[Publius]

I had predicted that The Splintering of the Democratic Party would occur this year. It appears I was overly optimistic, and the splintering will occur next year.

[Darkwolf377]

The Dems could have it all if they were honest, intellectual people who came out with a solid, workable "pullout" plan. Bush's numbers would sink and the Republicans would spend the last year of their control of congress adopting this brilliant Dem plan.

But the Dems have pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. Bush's ingratiating new forcefulness is challenging them--he's saying, "OK, here's the floor--what's YOUR plan?"

And the Harry Reid party stands there, microphone feedback ringing, mumbling "We want a CHANGE."

A legitimate party would be pushing their detailed, workable pullout plan. But the dems are merely cretins who want only to bitch, bitch and bitch some more, instead of saying "This is our country, and this is what we think is the way to protect it." If anyone doubted the dems were a ridiculous party, this is their evidence: Asked for their position on the #1 issue of the day, they say "I don't know."

[DustyMoment]

Taking a position would nail them down. This way, being all over the map on Iraq and the WOT (except the right path), they can claim to be right when they're wrong.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

the last line is the best: (IMO, of course)

"In the end, leadership means maintaining some principles that are non-negotiable – especially when it comes to the safety and security of America."

[Darkwolf377]

Good point. Bush's position is that he is enduring a lot of criticism, but what I heard of last night's speech sounded like it could have been spoken on September 12. He isn't shifting with political winds, ala the dems. He hasn't gotten bored and changed the subject, which is the surest way to get in a quagmire. He sees the overarching importance of these battles.

W is still a mediocre speaker, but I am more convinced than ever that he is a strong thinker.

[gondramB]

The author sounds like he would be happier if the Democrats openly oppose the war.

[popdonnelly]

Pelosi did this because the anti-war Dems will in no way support the war. So taking no position is the only safe position for the Congressional Dems.

[skinkinthegrass]

I had predicted that The Splintering of the Democratic Party? would occur this year. It appears I was overly optimistic, and the splintering will occur next year.

...What a fine piece of writing, its' great...I agree, they (the Rats' ) are cracking up..

BTW, Got any popcorn?

[skinkinthegrass]

Great posts, Freepers. :D

[Pikachu_Dad]

Oh the Dims have taken a stand alright. They have sent their best and brightest over to Iraq to defend Sadam.

[wingsof liberty]

Once again, kudos to Joe Lieberman for seeing the light. But it sounds like hes the only democrat on board with the President. What happened to our good buddy Zell Miller? Hes been strangly quiet lately...

[lancer]

Democrats Take a Powder on Iraq

You expected something else...?

For example, a principled stand? A patriotic response to the threat of islamic terrorism?

Do you inhale? (:-)

[Nuc1]

Your essay is well thought out and a fine read. I for one would like to see more of your work grace FR. Thanks.

[skinkinthegrass]

They have sent their best and brightest over to Iraq to defend Sadam.

LOL! Fmr. U.S. AG Ramsey Clark...Saddam's doomed, He justs doesn't know it.

[Pikachu_Dad]

LOL! Fmr. U.S. AG Ramsey Clark...Saddam's doomed, He justs doesn't know it.

Now why would you say that. The man is the TOP Democratic attorney. Don't worry about his won/lost record - after all, everybody is always a winner. At least that's what the democrats always tell me.

[skinkinthegrass]

Now why would you say that. The man is the TOP Democratic attorney. Don't worry about his won/lost record - after all, everybody is always a winner.

>Evil grin< :D