Oh this is hilarious. Democrats must be scared to death about the up coming elections. Funny things happen when the entire nation takes a hard right turn.
Ever since the liberation of Kabul last fall, the Democratic Party has been publicly floundering, clearly clueless about how effectively to play the role of the loyal opposition in the war on terror.
This makes no sense. How can any "opposition" be loyal? you either are opposed or you are not.
It now seems, at least to this Democrat, that only one course offers the virtues of serving the national interest, offering a clear alternative to President Bush, and holding out the possibility of political gain.
Oh I see, it really not about being loyal. It is about "political" gain.
That course is for the Democrats to become the true War Party, the clear-eyed hawks--in essence, to outflank Mr. Bush on the right.
I only have one question.
Will Barbara Boxer Vote the party line?
Will Berkley Calif. secede from the union?
Will Jesse Jackson join the military?
Will Al Gore unlock the box?
Have you calculated the cost of visine to keep Ted Kennedy`s Eyes clear?
I lied it was more than one.
Such a policy would entail criticizing the administration's policy toward Iraq not for excessive bombast, or lack of enthusiasm for multilateralism, but for insufficient results. It was widely mentioned, beginning about eight months ago, that we had about one year before Saddam Hussein would pose a mortal threat to our interests. (Where this one-year estimate came from no one ever seemed to say--just as no one ever said how many months' margin of error might be implicit in the estimate.) Well, we've exhausted perhaps two-thirds of our supposed window of nonvulnerability--and we have almost nothing to show for it.
You almost had me on my way to the Democratic head quarters to register.
Add Nuke em in there and I might make the trip.
Beyond Iraq, a War Party critique would ask why we were so timid at Tora Bora, and again in Operation Anaconda. It would ask why we have been reticent about pursuing al Qaeda into Pakistan's northwestern tribal territories, or into Kashmir. It would also ask why we have pussyfooted in Indonesia and the Philippines.
You left out nuke em again. That is the "magic" word. If want to be the true war party you got to say it.
More fundamentally, it would ask why we continue to seem so solicitous of a Saudi regime that expresses no gratitude for our rescue of it from Saddam just 11 years ago, and no real remorse for its citizens' predominant role in the events of Sept. 11 and in the hierarchy of al Qaeda. This is a regime, moreover, that constantly drags its feet in efforts to choke off the financing of terror, upgrade airline security and end the teaching of anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred to children. A War Party critique would then ask why such a regime remains within the defense perimeter of the U.S. The jihadis want Mecca and Medina; we want the uninterrupted flow of oil. Perhaps both objectives can be met, even if the Saudi regime doesn't survive such a division.
A War Party policy would seek to put into practice what President Bush has only preached about other nations and the people in them being held to a choice of being "either with us or against us." That is attractive rhetoric indeed--especially as we now face that rare choice between good and evil, between the quick and the dead. But President Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, have not truly been forced to choose. Nor has the House of Saud. Yasser Arafat has not even been asked to choose.
You left out nuke Mecca and Medina. The true war party would nuke Mecca and Medina so the jihadis could never have them. The true war party would just go take the oil. Why be worried about steping on a few toes, this is war. I`m starting to think you are not serious about being the war party.
Which brings us to the politics of such a policy. Seen in the light of today's events, Democratic leaders view a War Party policy as unthinkable
Until they saw that Bush`s approval numbers not droping. And Tom Dashle get beat up everytime he said something against the war.
It is still not too late to make our choice. But time is growing short.
I`m afraid it is too late. It was too late the second that Barbara Boxer voted against the use of force. And some democrats tried to defend her vote. At that very instant in time. If you closed your eyes and listened. You could hear the conservative Democratic voters walking away from the party. |
