The Democratic party is nothing if not consistent. And their Chairman is a living, breathing representation of everything that is tragically wrong about a once great party that at one time, led the fight for freedom and democracy around the world.
The fact that Howard Dean has come out and said that the Iraq War is “unwinnable” should not surprise anyone. It has been the unspoken position of the Democratic Party that preventing the United States from winning in Iraq is the number one political goal of the party. Allowing for victory would cement Republican majorities in the House and Senate for the foreseeable future, something that the party cannot tolerate. It is a party currently constructed for the sole purpose of exercising the power of the federal government to benefit its confusing alphabet soup of interest groups, organizations, NGO’s, and hangers’ on. Wielding power for power’s sake is the reason for its existence. And being out of power threatens to destroy it. This is the party that stood up to communist aggression in the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60’s while Republicans wanted to bury their heads in the sand and pretend the threats to freedom in the world were none of our business.
They are well beyond that now, of course. For more than a quarter of a century, they have been driving loyal Americans away from the fold until all that is left are the remnants of the anti-Viet Nam coalition; media, academia, and the social misfits and anti-American galoots who continue to play the same tired, electoral hand of race baiting, class warfare, and suicidal isolationism that appeals to a narrower and narrower band of the American electorate.
Unfazed by this losing combination, the Democratic leadership has been reduced to political hackery of the worst sort – a pandering for votes and money at the expense of the national security of the United States. The problem isn’t that they want to win elections. The problem is that in their current delusional state, they believe that by turning their backs on history that they can somehow click the tumblers into place and unlock the secret of victory at the ballot box. By convincing themselves of the absolute rightness of their moral posturing on Iraq, they believe that they can convince a majority of their countrymen that cutting and running in the middle east is a policy without consequence, that retreat in the face of aggression will not be seen by the world – our enemies most especially – as a monumental defeat for the US and our position in the world.
I always liked that line from Gladiator where Caesar asks Maximus “What is Rome?” Maximus answers “Rome is the light. The rest of the world is darkness.” While it may be politically incorrect to think so, the idea of American exceptionalism is one of the major reasons the world is as livable as it is. As bad as things are, how much worse would the world be without an America as a beacon in the night for freedom loving peoples everywhere? How much more trouble would the earth be in if, as the Democrats so fervently desire, America were to take a secondary role in world affairs and allow the corrupt, freedom hating bureaucrats at the UN to take the lead in trying to tamp down the scourge of terrorism that threatens to extinguish the light of human tolerance and understanding?
America is the light. And while the entire rest of the world may not be the darkness, we certainly outshine those countries who should be standing with us shoulder to shoulder in our fight to protect the best of western civilization. The Democratic party has joined the chorus of those who believe that America is a force for evil in the world. They are convinced that any setback we endure in Iraq would be a good thing because it would teach us humility or would bring us down a peg or two in the international pecking order. This is stupid and suicidal. Masking their defeatist and yes, unpatriotic positions in the rhetoric of feel-good, new age hokum, Democrats will attempt to hide their real feelings on the War and America’s place in the world because they know that a majority of Americans – barely – disagree with them.
By turning their back on the Iraqi people, the Democrats are turning their backs on one of the most powerful forces for good the world has ever seen; the simple, compelling need of human beings to decide their own destiny free from terror, free from coercion, and free from the strife that has afflicted mankind since we crawled out of caves and began to live with the hope that things could be better. Perhaps it is the concept of good and evil that confuses them. Perhaps it is the idea that in this conflict one side is right and the other side is wrong. Such stark moral choices don’t go over well in the salons where liberals shake their heads and click their tongues in disapproval over American actions.
But I’ve got news for the Democrats and their far left allies who are seeking to deal the United States a political defeat in this war on terror; our enemies have no such daintiness when it comes to deciding who is right and who is wrong. They clearly delineate between factions. They don’t toss and turn at night worrying about moral quandaries. They are simply prepared to do whatever is necessary to win.
The hard fact is the United States needs the left, we need the Democratic party to engage in this fight. Without them, we are going into the battle with one hand tied behind our back. And Howard Dean and the rest of the defeatists in Congress and the hinterlands of America must be roundly and soundly disabused of the notion that they have any support outside of a few isolated ivory towers in academia, the media, and some of the darker places in American politics.
The real Democrats – the Democrats of my father who fought for freedom in WW II and here at home – have got to stand up and once and for all eliminate this disease from their ranks. Otherwise, America will keep limping along only half engaged in this battle for survival. And that would be a recipe for disaster.
7:17 am
Dean: U.S. can’t win Iraq war
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is drawing GOP fire after telling a Texas radio s
9:23 am
Excellent argument as always. The problem is that the argument is based on an assumption that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous. They are not. The current Republican effort to say that the reasons for getting into the war are no longer a worthy topic of discussion is tacit admission that going into Iraq (as a part of the War on Terror) was misguided.
Terrorism was not a problem in Iraq under Saddam. The brutal bastard would never tolerate any form of opposition or resistance. Our efforts in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and bin Laden were correct responses to 9/11. Eliminating the terrorist training camps, cutting into terrorist funding mechanisms, etc. were needed and effective efforts.
Stating that Saddam supported terrorists, was a brutal dictator, and was developing WMD were true statements, but not sufficient to trigger an invasion. The Arab world is filled with brutal, undemocratic governments (as is Asia and Africa). Should we have not invaded Iran with the rationale provided for the invasion of Iraq? A much more involved supporter of terrorism, clearly more advanced in developing WMD’s than Iraq, and wildly undemocratic and openly threatening to the U.S.
Why are we not pursuing better preparation for terrorist attacks in America? Katrina exposed our lack of preparation for a major attack on America. Our borders are porous, open to terrorist infiltration at will. Our first responders still do not have a seamless communication network. Congress fights to spend anti-terrorist funding as typical pork (spend in my district so I can brag about bringing home the bacon in my next campaign), not on the likelihood of being an attack target.
It is nearly impossible to see how the fighting factions in Iraq will come together peaceably, no matter how long we stay. I would love to be wrong about this, but the past remains the best predictor of the future.
That said, the Democratic party is floundering, without direction or purpose. Every society or social group requires forces that promote change and forces that promote stability. The Democrats have traditionally been the progressive, or change component. This is needed as external and internal forces change the landscape. Too much or too rapid change can destroy the society, and respect for tradition and working traditional institutions is needed for continuity and stability. This has been the traditional role of the Republicans.
As the Democrats have become defenders of their outdated status quo (can there be a bigger failure than the War on Poverty?), the Republicans have been put in a position as being both the agents of stability and the agents of change. It is untenable for one component of a social system to do both. The natural results of trying to do both are corruption and lies, ala Tom Delay, etc. (The same results occurred when Democrats were in power.)
Democrats need to reformulate their goals and be an effective and useful opposition party for the 21st Century. Mr. Moran has drawn a correct conclusion regarding the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, conflating the questioning of the efforts in Iraq with seeking American failure is untrue. The 59 million Americans that voted for Kerry in 2004 (and the 61 million that voted for Bush) are largely patriotic. The fringe extremists that wish America harm, and they do exist, are a very small percentage of Americans.
Claiming all Democrats seek harm to America is disingenuous at best. If we want Democrats to step up and be real partners in the American efforts to defeat terrorism, some honesty from Republicans will be required.
11:05 am
Nice post. You could have stopped after just the first five words, of course…
However, I don’t think the Democrats have convinced themselves that “retreat in the face of aggression will not be seen by the world – our enemies most especially – as a monumental defeat for the US and our position in the world.”
I’m just of the opinion that they really don’t care. There are many in the Democrat party that honestly do not like that America is the shining light of the world. They WANT to bring America down. They honestly WANT America to be defeated—primarily so they can obtain power, of course.
1:00 pm
Thank you Ed for stating the truth without slander. So much talk these days is to defend the powerful by defaming the powerless.
1:29 pm
If pins perchance came without heads ….. would would the left dance upon?
Me, I’m not afraid of the left. And I’m not afraid of their affect on policy. Though Dub some days may ask wtf?
He’s got the fortitude. He isn’t going to quit. And America will not quit on him.
No matter how many carpet crawlers with full toities on the left, are a cryin.
Link is provided as a convenience/courtesy for those who may have the need for communication with liberals.
http://understanding.infantilism.org/glossary.php
1:40 pm
Howard Dean: Architect of Defeat
In an interview broadcast by WOAI Radio in San Antonio yesterday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean finally abandoned his rhetoric about supporting the troops and articulated what the Democrats really believe: the U.S. can’t win in Ir…
2:26 pm
Right Wing Nut House
Lengthy posts – not always doctrinaire. Says of the Democrats: “Preventing the U.S. from winning in Iraq is the number one political goal of the party…Wielding power for power’s sake is the reason for its existence.” After going on like this at l…
3:49 pm
Good luck in persuading the “patriotic” Democrats to join the war effort. I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but these folks have about as much chance of dropping their seditious, defeatist ways as a cow has of jumping the moon. This is not the first time that the party of Jefferson has backed rebellion during wartime: the Dems of Lincoln’s era were much the same in their pro-slavery, pro-state’s rights opposition to nearly everything Lincoln tried.
Our only hope is to win this war with focused, determined effort, with or without the “patriotic” Democratic party.
4:08 pm
Ed –
If you had a blog, I’d read it. I don’t agree with 100% of your conclusions, but I found your arguments fair and well balanced. Nice job!
4:52 pm
It really is up to America to hold back the darkness. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has proven that some of the darkness has gotten inside of us.
5:18 pm
DaveG, that’s quite a compliment. Thank you. This blog is so thoughtful and well written, it behooves all commenters to try to follow Mr. Moran’s lead. We can go to the Huffington Post if we just want to call each other asshats.
5:29 pm
Yes; in the words of the famous folk- philosopher Rodney King, “can’t we all jus’ get along?”
5:46 pm
Ed, Mr. Moran is not a lead to follow. Spewing anti-democratic rhetoric while ignoring the blatant failings of the republican stewardship is tired propaganda. I hear as many republicans against the Iraq nightmare and an equal number on both sides for the mistake. The continued attack on any opposition is a sign of weakness from the apologists needing to prop up their failing ideology.
5:52 pm
Ed is a democrat, lawyer like. The enemy is the ancient Arabian death culture, like the Roman General when asked 250 AD why Rome hadn’t conquered the entire Arabian peninsula, he told them that the people were of a savage nature, that considered death by natural causes as unworthy. He said there was no real value to gain and they would ultimately have to slaughter everyone. 1800 years later, we are Rome and can not conquer militarily the Arabian peninsula. We have far greater reason to attack Saudi Arabia for 9/11 than Iraq, but such an effort would inflame the entire Muslim world and be disastrous. Name an Arab country that we could attack with an adaptive culture to democracy and has a historical regional influence, Iraq. Democracy is the only and least destructive weapon to civilians available to destroy this enemy. Democrats are our Sunni insurgency, doing everything possible to prevent progress. In Iraq and the United States, they will both fail.
6:01 pm
Eric, my suggestion was to follow his lead in being thoughtful and articulate in writing. I frequently disagree with Rick’s positions, per my first comment in the thread, but I do appreciate the thought that goes into his writing.
6:21 pm
The article “Is George Bush The Worst President Ever?” is now in its sixth day on the Yahoo News Most Popular list.
The zeitgeist is a beautiful thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/
Q) What do chickenhawks and crackwhores have in common?
A) Both prefer to work with their mouths.
6:34 pm
ed and everyone, opinions are a worth about as much as ‘free’ advice but the right to voice an opinion is a right that is not available to people in many societies something that we Americans need to be continually reminded of and should be grateful for. My opinion of politics in our country today is that it has evolved into a love/hate relationship with the president and those emotions are so strong that they drown out the debate. Bush is not perfect, no president ever was and no president will ever be. I think it is too easy to forget that the attack on our nation on 9/11/2001 was near the magnitude of the attack on Pearl Harbor which has its anniversary today and as the country replied in kind after Pearl Harbor, the country under president Bush had to retaliate after 9/11/2005. The proper retaliation is against the known enemy. After Pearl Harbor the identity of the enemy was obvious because their symbol, the rising sun, was displayed for all to see. The problem after 9/11 is that the identity of the enemy was not obvious and even today remains in doubt. Is the enemy as the president stated at that time any nation who supports the terrorists in some way directly or indirectly? If that is not correct, then just who is the enemy and how does one go about defeating them?
8:26 pm
You Can Think It, But You Can’t Say It
“Dean’s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful”. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) is very harsh, but according to the Washington Post, he is not the only Democrat to fear that his leaders’ rhetorical …
8:39 pm
docdave:
I respectfully disagee that specific opinions are not of value. Ideas drive behavior for individuals and nations. Political debate is vital. Your statement that emotions drown out debate is so true. In some quarters it seems mandatory to hate Bush if you disagree with him about anything. This also seemed to be the atmosphere during the Clinton years.
You stated that the proper retaliation for 9/11 was against the known enemy. The operations to shut down the terrorist training camps of the Taliban and the attacks on bin Laden fit the bill. It is vital to identify and neutralize further terrorist threats. A major problem is that wars happen between states. The terrorists are not nations, so the primary fight must, by definition, be law enforcement efforts and spying operations to intercede in planned terrorist attacks and the funding sources that can make the attacks possible. Military action can only be an adjunct to these efforts.
I agree that nations that support terrorists are indeed enemies. Since we cannot declare war on all of those nations, we are back to the painstaking efforts to identify and intercede in terrorist plots, useful planning in handling the results of attacks on American soil, and putting political and economic pressure on terrorist supporting nations. But then again, that’s just one opinion.
10:10 pm
Bill Knee:
We’re supposed to take at face value the rantings of liberal hack Bill Reeves and a bunch of left-wing academics?
The church-state complaint is loony. The part about “improving productivity” at the expense of jobs is demonstrably false. The “unwinnable” Iraq war is being proven wrong every day.
Bush Derangement Syndrome just doesn’t affect drooling idiots like you – it is especially prevalent in academia.
10:54 pm
If President Clinton decided to fight Islamofascism after:
the 1st World Trade Center bombing
the twin African Embassy bombings
the Khobar Towers bombing
the Cole bombing
would anyone have taken him seriously…
He looks like Winston Churchill compared to Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha, Biden, Kennedy, and the chairman of the Democratic Party – Howard Dean.
A truly pathetic clique they belong to…
Small and getting smaller…
11:04 pm
Dems once again fail to find unified message on Iraq
Afraid of looking soft on terror, some Dems are expressing concerns that the loud chorus of antiwar remarks by top Dems like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Howard Scream, er, Dean, will hurt the party going into next year’s elections:
S…