Andrew Sullivan: Gore and Revenge

As usual, a really sharp comment from Virginia Postrel on Gore's speech. She cites the passage where Gore says

that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it ... I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. [Emphasis added.]

This is a very interesting way of framing the task at hand: not to prevent future attacks on Americans but to avenge the deaths on September 11. Now there's no question that many Americans, myself included, have entertained the desire for vengeance. But the only reason to act on that impulse is to make it clear that future attacks will be costly for the attackers. Vengeance for vengeance's sake is just blood lust. It might feel good, but (leaving aside any humanitarian considerations) it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Vengeance may even make matters worse, by escalating blood feuds without eliminating threats. Gore's pooh-poohing of the administration's Iraq policy depends in large measure on his definition of the problem. If you want to prevent further attacks, you have to worry about state-sponsored weapons programs. If you just want to get revenge, you don't.

I think that's a brilliant insight. In his pathetic attempt to find a way to attack his nemesis, Gore has actually reverted to the kind of bellicose hysteria we usually associate with the far right. In fact, I think Gore's speech is essentially what happens when a man takes his emotion and tries to find reasons - any reasons - for it. If the Democrats follow him, it will be into a political wilderness.

The democrats are in a quandry with this popular President and Iraq dominating the airwaves. Their "handlers" have made the decision that they have to confront the President about Iraq and in desperation they have decided to "take him on." As with everything else they've tried, it's failed. And with each failure they scream louder and become more shrill, but are still not being heard. The beauty of it is, the President does appear as if he is the one concerned with America's security and not the democrats. The democrats are making this a political issue, not the President. Remember, the democrats wanted the debate and they got it, now they can't handle it. Now they actually have to go on record as supporting the President or being wimpy and they brought it all on themselves. And with mid-term elections just a few weeks away yet. It was amusing to watch Daschle and Byrd feign "passion" in their speeches, throwing in an occasional yell to make it look good. And Daschle defends Inouye (accused rapist) and Byrd (former KKK Grand Dragon) while the President tries to defend the American people, in spite of democrats, saddam, liberals, etc. Daschle defends these war veterans, which is fine, but how can war veterans, like Inouye and Byrd, not support the Commander-in Chief? If this were clinton they would be supporting him, but because Bush is a Republican, they can't support him? These may be war veterans but is there any doubt that they would put their political future first over the security concerns of the American people? The democrats are proving right now that they are not worried about the security of the American people, just as President Bush said. Look, being a veteran is fine, but Timothy McVeigh was in the U.S. Army too, so having served in the U.S. military for a while doesn't mean that you are above criticism or always right on these matters. The democrats would have never questioned clinton like they are President Bush. In the end, President Bush will have to act in the best interests of the American people and he is doing that. I personally don't think he should have consulted the democrats or anybody else about Iraq first, I think he should have gone in by now, but by prolonging the debate he does seem to have gained the upper hand politically for the Republicans. I have one final thought: if something catastrophic happened, like 9/11 or worse, then the democrats would be the first to scream that President Bush didn't do enough to protect the American people. They've already tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on Bush. While I give the President credit for a lot of what he has done, I also think he needs to act more and talk and listen less. An "October Surprise" would still be the best strategy.

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.