August 22, 2005
That's what they DON'T want...
I saw this line in an article by Ron Brownstein in the LAT [Thanks to Orrin]
...But Sheehan will have done the nation a service if she inspires, or shames, both parties to resume debate over the direction of the Iraq war...
But a debate is what the Sheehan-ites DON'T want. (In fact it's funny to imagine the pickle they would be in if there really were to be some sort of formal debate, and moveon.org and the rest were informed they had to have their debaters ready for Prime Time next Wednesday!)
If there were serious debate, it would turn out like 2002. Remember summer of 2002, when Dem congressional leaders kept saying that we need to have a "national debate" on Iraq? And then they were flummoxed when Bush requested a resolution from Congress authorizing an invasion?
If you are going to debate, you have to have a position to advance, you have to be for something. And you have to not only attack your opponent's position, but defend your own. They can't do that, they have no position, no plan. They are empty inside.
What they want is for the forces of freedom to lose confidence, to become confused and abashed, and to give up the fight. What they want is VIETNAM.
They want red-state America to slink away in confusion and doubt, and the War on Terror to sort of fizzle-out in disgust, so the left never has to stand trial for the people they would be destroying. Just like Vietnam. Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry are mass murderers, who helped condemn millions to death, imprisonment and communist tyranny. But they never had to accept responsibility. Because there was no debate. The war was won militarily, and then lost amidst confusion and doubt.
Posted by John Weidner at August 22, 2005 08:59 AM | TrackBack'...But Sheehan will have done the nation a service if she inspires, or shames, both parties to resume debate over the direction of the Iraq war...'
No need for debate to 'resume'. It has been going on all along. It was a major focus of the 2004 presidential race. But democrats, as you point out, don't have a coherent position. Invoking Vietnam at every turn is not as convincing as they think it is.
Still, in one sense Brownstein is right. The debate 'ended' when GW Bush won reelection. The country chose a winner in the debate, and chose a course of action.
Brownstein doesn't like the choice. He wants to keep arguing until his side wins. If that means making common cause with totalitarian sympathizers and anti-Semitic nutjobs, so be it. If it means emotional blackmail and crass media manipulation, that's fine, too.
The only argument that remains out of bounds is one based on the nature of global terror, and the appropriate survival response from the civilized world.
The only argument that remains out of bounds is one based on the nature of global terror, and the appropriate survival response from the civilized world.
This debate is one also duscouraged by the Bush camp as seen in the rebranding from a War to a mere struggle.
