March 29, 2006
What do you call sabotaging your country in time of war?
Amir Taheri writes in OpinionJournal, that many countries are now "waiting Bush out," in hopes that political weakness will undermine and end his push for democratization. It makes ugly reading.
I will repeat what I have written before. Our tradition, in this country, is for the party out of power to support our leadership in time of war. It is tradition, and also an obvious necesity. What the Democrats are doing now---Democrats, news-media, pacifists, academics---is treason. It is a deliberate sabotage of their country in war time, and we can see the results.
And it is treason to the world. The hopes for freedom of hundreds of millions of people are hanging in the balance, and these scoundrels are siding with tyrants and terrorists and murderers...
....It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U.S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals....
...According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions....
And what Democrats are doing (not all of them, but "core" Dems for sure) is treason to their own traditions of supporting democracy and the hopes of the oppressed. And treason to the obvious requirement that great questions be decided with moral seriousness, and not out of spite and fear and personal interest.
The bloody wars of the 20th Century were, for Americans, all Democrat wars. And in every case the Republican Party supported our country, not grudgingly, but with warm-hearted generosity. No enemy of America, not the Kaiser or Hitler or Tojo or Mao or Ho Chi Minh ever thought they could "wait it out," because Republicans might come into power and sell their country out.
Posted by John Weidner at March 29, 2006 06:53 AMIt should be sabotaged look at what they are doing and causing
Bombing at Iraq Recruiting Center Kills 40
There you go again...we caused Ba'athist dead enders and Al qaeda terrorists to kill innocent Iraqis and if we'd just go away...forget it. The same murderers would keep killing until they're in power and then keep killing to stay in power or just for fun. Remember the mass graves, remember Ouday and Qusay (thank heavens they are now passee.) Or do you believe that Arabs and particularly Iraqis don't deserve at least a chance at freedom, prosperity and peace? You don't get from Saddam's dictatorship to some kind of democracy without a few Nazi/Baathists getting upset and trying to thwart the process. Moonbat. Traitor. Anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-democracy moonbat. If you were really anti-war, why are you only against American wars?
Posted by: Doug In Colorado at March 30, 2006 07:46 AMYou're probably arguing with a troll, Doug. But isn't he a perfect example of the basic leftist belief, that everything wrong in the world is caused by the USA. And that other people aren't real; they're just puppets moved by us.
Posted by: John Weidner at March 30, 2006 09:19 AMyou wrote: "treason to the obvious requirement that great questions be decided with moral seriousness, and not out of spite and fear and personal interest."
what you are describing here is the war in iraq itself: a war this country was dragged into because our leaders peddled fear, and their corporate cronies (halliburton, etc) are profiting enormously! that is the real treason!
your zealotry and failure to listen to anyone but those who agree with you make it impossible to communicate or truly debate the issues - but history will prove to you that this president is the worst disaster ever to the united states and the world, and it is he - not the left - that should be brought up on charges of TREASON.
Posted by: justin at March 31, 2006 12:25 PMWell, I'm listening to you. (And in fact I'm constantly listening to those who disagree with me, since a lot of my blogging consists of responses to such people.)
And my response to you is, that while it is possible history may show this president as a disaster, so far the trend is in the other direction. As Saddam's archives are made public, we are finding MORE evidence of his WMD ambitions. And MORE evidence of his training and funding of al Qaeda terrorists.
And three successful elections plus a fair amount of developing stability in the face of extreme terrorist provocation is a good indicator that our bet on the Iraqis is going to pay off.
Posted by: John Weidner at March 31, 2006 02:06 PMFunny thing, I thought that practically the entire membership of the House and Senate voted for this war. Certainly they have voted for evey subsequent appropriation.
I don't think that criticism of of what has admittedly been a disastrous execution of what was sold as a quick and practically cost-free war rises to the level of treason. After all, this is supposed to be a Democracy.
For you to assert that Republicans didn't criticize the war-time policies or execution of war-time strategy by Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson betrays either an alarming ignorance of history, or a wilfull intention to mislead your audience.
Posted by: Craig at April 6, 2006 08:15 AMI've never said that one can't criticize our war efforts. What the Dems are doing is undermining them.
That's what it means when our enemies are "waiting Bush out,' hoping a future administration will retreat. Our enemies are encouraged to continue to fight against us, or resist democratic reform, specifically due to the encouragement being given them by Democrats.
American soldiers are being killed by terrorists right now because they hope to help Democrats.
Republicans never have given our enemies encouragement to fight on in hope that a Republican administration would sell out America. (And as far a criticism goes, Dewey had planned to put criticism of Pearl Harbor preparedness at the center of his 1944 campaign, and dropped his plan when General Marshall asked him not to because crucial information about code-breaking might be revealed.)
That Congress voted for the war makes their conduct much worse. How the war was "sold" is irrelevant. No one can predict how a war will turn out. They had the same information the President had and they voted to send our troops into battle. To undercut them and endanger them now approaches treason. They might have had at least an excuse if they had voted against the Iraq Campaign.
What's truly vile and disgusting is that what Dems are doing now has nothing to do with principle or conscience. Just political expediency of the basest sort.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 6, 2006 09:15 AMIt isn't just "political expediency" to suggest alternatives to the biggest foreign policy disaster to hit the US in, well, maybe ever.
What Bush should have done, had he been really intent on showing the middle east a successful democracy, would have been to limit the US to Afghanistan, which we could easily have transformed by now with the forces and fortune we already had at our command. Iraq could have waited.
But, if he was bound and determined to go into Iraq, he ahould have put the country on a war footing, instituted a draft, and gone full bore. We wouldn't be worrying about any insurgency about now, that's for sure.
He had the votes, he had the full support of the American people, ALL the American people: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims. Why didn't he do it right? Why didn't he listen to the Generals when they said it was going to take more troops, cost more money?
Whatever the reason, he didn't. He went in half-assed, with half a plan, and committed us halfway in a half-hearted effort. The results have been a disaster, and he still doesn't have a plan going forward, either to get in or to get out.
Posted by: Craig at April 6, 2006 11:20 AMThere's nothing at all wrong with suggesting alternatives or that different plans would have worked better. I happen to disagree with your prescriptions, but proposing them is perfectly proper for you or for Democrat leaders.
But that has nothing to do with my point.
What's wrong is conveying to our enemies, as Democrats are doing, that they will profit by killing Americans, or that they should 'wait us out' because a Democrat administration will surrender or be indecisive.
Whether it's good or bad, America is at war, and you people are undermining our war effort and making the war harder to win, and most certainly ensuring that more American and allied troops are killed.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 6, 2006 11:48 AM
