Disingenuous Party - The Democratic antiwar problem - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2007, 12:52 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Disingenuous Party - The Democratic antiwar problem

Quote:
Disingenuous Party
The Democratic antiwar problem.


By Victor Davis Hanson

Why did a majority of Democratic senators — such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer — vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?

The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes — but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, senators at the time also cited Iraq’s sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam’s attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.

Nevada’s Sen. Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam’s refusal to honor past agreements “constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

But it was not just fear of Saddam alone that prompted Democrats to authorize the use of force to remove him. There was the more general, liberal notion of using American arms to stop violent dictators. While the Democratic party has a strong pacifist wing, its mainstream has always advocated a global promotion of American liberal values — sometimes through the use of preemptory force.

Many Democrats in Congress, for example, had earlier authorized George Bush Sr. to fight the first Gulf War to stop Saddam’s mad drive to absorb Kuwait. In 1999, House Democrats sought, but failed, to pass congressional authorization for President Clinton’s ongoing air war against Slobodan Milosevic.

Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton’s humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.”

Throughout American history, it was usually the Democratic party that proved the more interventionist. Democratic presidents — whether Woodrow Wilson in 1917, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939-40, Harry Truman in 1950, John Kennedy in 1963 or Bill Clinton in 1999 — long battled Republican isolationists who insisted that it was never in America’s interest to fight costly wars abroad unless directly attacked by a foreign nation.

Again, why then did the majority of Democratic senators vote for the present war in October 2002?

One, they rightly concurred with the president’s post-9/11 conversion to the idea that removing a Middle Eastern mass-murdering regime and leaving a consensual government in its place could be a key component in winning the war against Islamic terrorism. And two, their party had always believed that the United States can sometimes make things better abroad by stopping tyrants and dictators.

By the same token, why do many of these same initial supporters of the Iraq war four years later now promise either to withdraw troops or to cut off funds, and so often hedge on or renounce their past records?

Partisan advantage explains much of the present posturing against an opposition president. But mostly, the rising Democratic furor comes as a reflection of public anger at the costs of the war — and the sense that we are not winning.

Unlike the invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf war (1991), the Balkans war (1999) or even the Afghanistan conflict (2001-2007), Iraq has taken over 3,000 American lives. Had the reconstruction of Iraq gone as relatively smoothly as the three-week removal of Saddam, most Democratic candidates would now be heralding their past muscular support for democratic change in Iraq.

So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.

But they should remember one final consideration. The next time a Democratic administration makes a case for using America’s overwhelming military force to preempt a Milosevic or a mass murderer in Darfur — and history suggests that one will — the Democrats’ own present disingenuous antiwar rhetoric may come back to haunt them, ensuring that such future humanitarian calls will probably fall on ears as deaf as they are partisan.

(C) 2007 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:46 AM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:59 AM
This really is a no brainer and the fact that Victor Davis Hanson is still writing about shows the lack of story this man has to write and the reaching that the right are doing right now.

Almost all of those who have changed their stance since their vote to authorize the vote have stated "if they knew then what they know now..."

This "author" is writing the same shit they were writing years ago...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 05:26 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:59 AM
The Democrats voted for the war when they thought it was to their political advantage. They rallied against the war when they thought it was to their political advantage. No surprise there.

Generalizing, o far the difference I see between the two parties is the Democrats test the wind and adjust themselves accordingly. and the Republicans tell you which way the wind is blowing, whether it is blowing that way or not. I'm not sure we're served well either way.

I didn't find that particular piece to be particularly thought-provoking. Kind of a twenty-minute knock-off piece.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:15 PM   #4
Babyface
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: atlanta, georgia [atl yo]
Posts: 2
Local Time: 09:59 AM
It was Bush's administration's intelligence that led Democrats to vote for the war. They believed the lies that came from wherever, and voted accordingly. Obviously there were not WMD's, but they didn't know that at the time. I'm sure this is from the same kind of people who said there #1 reason for voting for Bush was because Kerry was a "flip-flopper." There are more important issues, like how to fix the mess we created. And yes, Bush is the president and he started the war, so it is his problem.
__________________
Dreaming4eva33 is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:41 AM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:59 AM
i think the bigger problem is to applaud the British pullout as evidence of progress in Iraq, and then warn that an American pullout would spell apocalyptic disaster, so stay-the-course.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:01 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreaming4eva33
It was Bush's administration's intelligence that led Democrats to vote for the war.
Didn't congress have the same information as the president?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:09 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Did it when Clinton's crew was talking the same line?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:12 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Surprisingly enough VDH supported Jim Webb's senate run, apparently they're old friends.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:13 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:59 PM
He is a democrat.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:16 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think the bigger problem is to applaud the British pullout as evidence of progress in Iraq, and then warn that an American pullout would spell apocalyptic disaster, so stay-the-course.
It's evidence of politics; troops out as soon as Blairs out
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com