Dr. Sanity has an exceptional post today that addresses several issues of note. The first is the changing Democratic talking points on Iraq in order to justify legislating withdrawal, highlighted by a quote from Victor David Hanson:
We will soon hear that the war, while granted that it may be winnable, was not worth the commensurate cost, from liberal critics who have embraced much of the realist and neo-isolationist creed of the past (at least apart from Darfur). That is a legitimate debate—as long as opponents accept that it is a fallback position, and Harry Reid was mistaken when he announced the war “lost”.
Also expect Democrats to find ways to exaggerate the aggregate costs (like counting the rise from 20-100 dollars a barrel for oil entirely due to the Iraqi war without notice of the new Chinese/Indian demand, unrest in Africa, and declining production from the UK to the US), . . .
We have in fact already seen that with Chuckie Shumer and the recent release of a report that claims the "hiddens" cost of the war in Iraq to be double the actual costs to date.
The second point raised in Dr. Sanity's post is by Gaghdad Bob, who notes the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of the moral double standard that the neo-liberals apply to America as opposed to its enemies:
On Labor Day I watched Saving Private Ryan again. In the beginning, there was a scene in which a few Germans wanted to surrender, but the American GIs casually shot them and chuckled about it. Now, it would take a far better -- or possibly worse -- man than I to have not done the exact same thing. After all, these were men who, just moments ago, were creating all the carnage on the beach below, leaving your living and breathing friends to die on the sand and in the water.
Today, because of the insane "moral perfectionism" of the left (which we have been discussing in recent posts), the behavior of these American GIs would have, in the words of Senator Dodd, given Hitler the "moral high ground." After all, Dodd and his ilk insist that the Islamofascists can claim the moral high ground based upon our three instances of waterboarding terrorists, while the New York Times published dozens of front page articles about the hijinks at Abu Ghraib, explicitly arguing that we had morally sunk beneath our enemies.
Again, it is not hyperbole to say that these people are literally morally insane.
Dr. Sanity agrees, doing us all the service of reminding us of days past when the neo-liberal left were still more concerned with our national security and intellectual honesty than in attaining partisan political advantage at whatever the cost to our nation:
Indeed, Moral Insanity is the perfect phrase to describe the behavior of the leadership in Congress; in the Media and on the political left these days.
Let's recall, shall we, what the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Rockefeller said a few short years ago (assembled from Power Line and an earlier post of my own):
Nancy Pelosi, December 1998:"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Ted Kennedy, September 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry, October 9, 2002:I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
And, how about those Democratic presidential wannabes past and present:
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
We could go on and on, but I'll close with one more from
John Kerry, January 23, 2003:Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
That was then, I guess, and this is now. Democrats seem to have short memories.
John Edwards, 2002“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
Al Gore, September, 2002:"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" and "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
As I have mentioned before, the Democratic Party has lost whatever anchor it once had in the real world and is blowin' randomly in the wind. It has become the party of nothing; led by vapid nothings, who stand for nothing, and whose opportunism appears to know no bounds. They have said and will say whatever they happen to think in any given moment is necessary in order to obtain or keep political power.
As they continue to intellectually approach the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the leftist base they pander to, we will have the continuing pleasure of watching these moral pygmies, currently even more intoxicated with power because they have a majority in Congress, as they actively undermine (all with the help of their media propaganda wing) any and all American interests around the world; impede and vilify US military actions (while saying they "support" the troops), and generally behave as prototypical leftists are wont to do--all, of course, in the name of "peace".
. . . Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is just another day's work for the Democrats who suffer from a compulsion to lose the war at any cost.
Read the entire post - and do see the cartoons at the bottom of the post, they are hilarious.
But can you imagine if the Democrats could succeed in legislating defeat - especially given the reality on the ground in Iraq today. What would the effect would be throughout the Muslim ummah?
The radical Islamists would certainly claim it as a victory "by the hand of Allah" that would likely take on mythical and mystical qualities, given that the U.S. military has all but destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq. It was the belief that Islam had defeated the "super power" of the Soviet Union that drove the growth of radical Islam through 2000. Today, even bin Laden admits that al Qaeda has failed and been defeated, declaring the "the darkeness" in Iraq to be "pitch black." But what if our national leadership hands them the opportunity to delcare victory despite the facts on the ground. That would clearly be portrayed as the intervention of Allah on the side of the radical Islamists. God help us all if that occurrs. Radical Islam will take on a new life not heretofore imagined. And, as the world's premier Orientalist, Bernard Lewis has stated, in such an event "the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting." That is an understatement.
Since Dr. Sanity posted this morning, the NYT has reported:
Senate Republicans today easily blocked an effort by Democrats to act on a war spending bill that would have provided $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would have required that troop withdrawals from Iraq begin within 30 days.
The bill had numerous other strings attached a well, including a goal of completing re-deployment from Iraqby mid-December 2008 and a narrowing of the Iraq mission to focus on counter-terrorism and training of Iraqi security forces.
There is such a complete disconnect with reality in the efforts of the Democrats it defies belief. Even their bill itself, requiring as it does that we begin "withdraw within 30 days" of some combat troops wholly ignores that a brigade of "surge" troops began redeployment to the US earlier in the week. That highlights just how much this legislation, moreso than anything else, is designed simply to allow the Democrats to claim that they forced withdraw and that the Iraq War is a defeat for America at least on par with Vietnam.
With the defeat of their bill, Harry Reid now intends to play politics with military funding. When our military desperately needs to repair itself and its forces, Harry Reid is quite content to let the year pass without any additional funding. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has articulated the consequences of such an action:
"With the passage of the Defense Appropriations Act, there is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time, through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department." Gates said.
"The high degree of uncertainty on funding for the war is immensely complicating this task and will have many real consequences for this department and for our men and women in uniform," he said.
That is not Reid's concern. The degree of neo-liberal perfidy is beyond disgrace.
Read More...
Summary only...
Posts
Not drunk is he who from the floor can rise again and drink some more.
