Posted on 11/15/2006 11:57:59 PM PST by neverdem
Will the Democrats' new control of the House and Senate shake things up that much abroad? They certainly will have plenty of opportunities to alter the present American course of fighting terrorists, the war in Iraq and our overall foreign policy.
For over three years, partisan opponents of the Bush administration have made two arguments against its conduct of the "global war on terror."
First, they've argued, the absence of another Sept. 11-like attack has not been the result of anything our government has done, here or overseas. Remember, after conditions in Iraq began to worsen, they began to say we were in even more jeopardy at home than we were five years ago.
Secondly, Democrats claimed, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act and targeted wiretaps have probably hurt Americans' civil liberties more than they've harmed terrorists.
So there is at last the opportunity to match prior rhetoric with action by stopping the money for these efforts. Then we could at last learn whether Democratic critics were right that much of President Bush's actions to combat terror have been either superfluous or counterproductive.
Likewise, in regard to the war in Iraq, which many Bush critics have compared to Vietnam, we will soon see whether the Democrats have a viable alternative plan.
Right now, there are really only three courses of future action in Iraq, two of which were presented by different factions of the Democratic Party in the months leading up to the midterm elections.
The first choice, the logical response to criticism by some Democrats that the U.S. has had too few troops in Iraq, is to add more - as we did in Vietnam between 1964 and 1969.
The second - and opposite - choice, as proposed by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and Congressman...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
ping
In other words, surprise!, surprise! ... regardless of what they call it, DemocRATS will be "staying the course" much to the surprise of the clueless dufus' who voted for them because they promised to "get us out of Iraq". Hahahaha
Does anyone think Hillary isn't aware of this scenerio?:
"...Pulling out will endanger the Kurds, Iraqi reformers, the sanctity of U.S. pledges abroad, and the reputation of the American military for generations. It would be hard to believe Democrats want to someday read, as we do now of Vietnam, that we were close to stabilizing Iraq when the funding to do so was cut off. ..."
She will never allow the rest of the RATS to hang that baggage around her neck - sinking her like a stone for sure for the 2008 general election.
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
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
bttt
I'm counting on the Dems to vastly overplay their hand.
Thanks for the ping, Tolik.
In other words, surprise!, surprise! ... regardless of what they call it, DemocRATS will be "staying the course" much to the surprise of the clueless dufus' who voted for them because they promised to "get us out of Iraq". Hahahaha
You could very well be correct. If so, just who do the moonbats support in 08?
The Democrats are in a fit about this. It is THEIR right and duty to endanger the civil liberties of the people, not the Republican's. How dare the Republicans intrude on the duties of the Democrats!
McGovern? LOL
Why take yesterdays nutter when you can have the new and improved nutter.
Michael Moore 08!
Yesterday, we baby sat with our grandkids after their hard day in K and 2nd grade.
I got a heads up from their Dad, our Son, to tune in Larry Kudlow's show on CNBC to watch Rangle dance while trying to get them to do their homework before getting on their bikes.
So I tuned in. Rangle at that time was not as dogmatic about his tax law changes as before. The panel Larry had had liberals and conservatives, so it wasn't the usual left wing gang rape of conservatives normally on CNBC.
I still had a 5 and 7 year old trying to get out of doing their homework and getting on their bikes to ride in the neighborhood. So I missed some of the exchanges.
If it is inconvenient, abort it.
It works for pregnancies, why not wars ?
I don't believe Pelosi will grasp the the consequences of her actions until it's too late.
Unintended consequences bite.
Nations around the world waken to an ugly reality -- the US is unreliable militarily.
Our friends divert money to their own protection. Enemies lust after weaker neighbors.
Pulling out of Iraq has profound repercussions - the unintended consequences of short term gain and long term disaster.
Two years from the pull out Japan's arming. China's pushing hard on Taiwan. Nukes proliferate throughout the ME and much of Africa. South Korea vacillates between doing too much and too little - North Korea smells blood in the water. The world economy? Scarce resources used to prop up military growth rather than retool the means of production? The world's economies are battered by the nonproductive use of capital...
Iraq policy is still in the Presidents hands. Yes, Congress could try to cut funding, but I doubt they will. And until they try, it's irrelevant. If GWB opts for a change in policy, even one based on the "policy group" recomendations, it's his decision, his policy. And yes, the reprecussions could be serious.
"McGovern" ~ Matchett-PI
"Why take yesterdays nutter when you can have the new and improved nutter. Michael Moore 08!" ~ Valin
Speaking of the nutters - they voted for the RATS, but they suspect that nothing will change and that some DemocRAT "leaders" only led them on long enough to get their votes. They cite these sorts of quotes from "leading Democrats", to back up their fears:
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3381&Itemid=220
Then they analyze what the election does and does not mean to them here [excerpted]:
"..They are not aiming for an immediate end to the war but instead for a shift in tactics within Iraq and, perhaps, in regard to other forces in the region. They are not questioning the morality or justness of the war, merely its execution. For these forces, the elections became one means of both criticizing the Bush team and forcing (and creating political cover for) a serious reassessment of the war’s conduct and adjustment in strategy.
The Democrats’ calls for a “new direction” and “competent” leadership in Iraq and their criticisms of Bush’s “failed policy” served these objectives. The Democratic denunciations of the war were vague. Few candidates spelled out specifically what they would do, and fewer still called for immediate withdrawal. Some called the war a “mistake,” but none called it what it actually is: reactionary, criminal, and immoral.
This vagueness had two major virtues for the ruling class. First, it enabled the Democratswho have consistently voted for and supported the Iraq war and continue to support its broad objectivesto divert the broad anti-war anger into a framework that doesn’t question the whole nature of the war. Second, it gives the Democrats the flexibility to join into a “bipartisan consensus” to “adjust,” rather than end, the war. Indeed, the “neocon” fascist William Kristol said on FOX News that the Republican defeat could actually give Bush the political cover to put more pressure on the Iraqi government and to call for some sort of regional conference (both Democratic demands), while also increasing the number of troops (which Kristol and other Republican forces like McCain favor). ..
..The pledges of the Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi for “civility and cooperation” must also be seen in this light [see “Post Elections: Dissecting the Democrats”]. She is pledging to hold tight, to not do anything that could possibly endanger the stability of the whole thing, and to keep “her base”those who do look to the Democratic Party as an agent of changefirmly in check. The people may have been voting to end the war and even to reverse the ugly direction of this regimebut Pelosi and the rest are already reinterpreting things and using their power to put a stamp on what people didto fit it into and make it serve a whole other set of objectives than most people intended through their votes.
The elections, therefore, by themselves, will not signal a fundamental reversal of course on Iraq, still less a repudiation of the logic that led to the invasion. Insteadabsent a massive movement in determined oppositionthey will end up as a vehicle to adjust, sustain and rehabilitate this hated war. ...
...Instead, the Democrats not only tacitlyand in some cases openlywent along with the Bush agenda on these and other questions, they took great pains to claim the “war on terror” as their own, even as that “war on terror” forms the logical underpinning of a huge part of Bush’s agenda. [see “The (Deadly) Logic of the ‘War on Terror’”] ...
...there is the urgent need to get the works of Bob Avakian into this situationin college courses and on the campuses more broadly, into the communities of the oppressed, on the radio, into the bookstores and libraries, out among intellectuals and in intellectual journals, and hundreds of other ways. ... The acute need for revolution continues. We must act."
Excerpted from:
The Elections: What They Do and Do NOT Mean
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3443&Itemid=220
I meant to ping you to this post, also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1739458/posts?page=16#16
bttt
Agreed, and that's a good thing. But something else will remove her from running, even though she's painted as the front-runner now.
Two years is an eternity in politics, and a lot can happen between now and 2008. Stay well, sweetie..................FRegards
More words of wisdom from the guy who helped the Dems win the Senate.
How so?
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.