Sometimes A Is A
(With apologies to Ayn Rand)…
You know, I try to stay above grossly unfair mass characterizations of the ones typified by this Glenn Greenwald piece. Broad-brush characterizations and insanely out of proportion shoe-banging are not my forte. But I’m having an increasingly hard time seeing why I can’t call Democrats, not traitors (now that is TRULY out of line), but defeatists who are mouthing ‘I support the troops’ while they attempt to bring the whole edifice of our efforts in Iraq tumbling down (and yes, I realize the occupation has been pretty disastrous – but I don’t think we are in a position where we must leave. In fact, I think that will bring on an even bigger disaster if it happens prematurely).
Thus, while disagreeing with some of the more rabid denunciations of the “Dems are traitors” sort, I agree with most of the sentiment of this blistering editorial in the Wall Street Journal today:
The [anti-surge House] motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to “support” the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their “bravery,” while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to “protect” the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
…[I]f Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm’s way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed–whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.
We aren’t prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week’s vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don’t have the political courage to help end.
…A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.
I feel betrayed by the empty promises made in the aftermath of the 2006 elections that Democrats would try to govern from the middle and change the way Washington works. They aren’t doing it on Iraq; instead, they are kowtowing to the progressive fringe (and they aren’t changing the ‘culture of corruption’, either, though we’ll get to that later). We now have the worst possible domestic situation we could have during wartime: a debate where partisanship trumps strategy and commonsense – and we’re all the worse for it…
None of this is mere politics; people genuinely believe Iraq is a mess and we’ll be better off when we’re out of it.
Whether or not the measure “supports the troops” is flatly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it’s good policy or not.
I much prefer talk of ‘defeatism’ (which I don’t find particularly objectionable; it’s just an emotive spin w/ an accurate descriptive component) to the stance that our nation’s policies ought to be guided by the feelings of men & women that volunteered to serve the nation. It puts the horse behind the cart.
The Democratic Party’s feelings on Iraq were pretty clear before the 2006 mid-terms. They were elected on a very clear anti-Iraq War platform, and most pollsters would agree that their Iraq stance is the basis for their entire electoral success.
I think the issue is where you perceive “middle” America to be. I doubt you can win both houses of Congress just without the support of the middle. Middle America is currently with the Democratic Party on this issue – staying in Iraq, troop surge, Dick Cheney’s “we’ve had major victories” etc, such positions are now the fringe.
Really? I certainly don’t. This is EXACTLY what I expected from the Dems. They rarely fail to live down to my expectations.