October 3, 2006


The Disappearing ‘Us' (MICHAEL BARONE, October 3, 2006, NY Sun)

One of the salutary results of the Clinton administration, I thought, was that it got liberals and Democrats in the habit of using the first person plural. U.S. military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere were "our troops." NATO and Japan and Australia and all the rest were "our allies." [...]

Today, Democrats are pretty much back to the third person plural. Yes, they still talk of "our troops" from time to time, but usually only to call for them to be "redeployed" from a mission that has been more successful than not, but has not been completed. They seldom mention any soldier's heroism unless they can persuade him to run for office on the Democratic ticket. They talk, instead, about George Bush's war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and — remember? — said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

And most Democrats are willing, even eager to take unprecedented stands that will retard the fight against terrorism. More than fourfifths of House Democrats voted against the military tribunals bill this week, though military tribunals have always been used to try unlawful combatants, and the bill gave those charged more protections than in the past.

Many have taken the astonishing position that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad, undeniably legal, must cease when the subject calls someone in America until a court warrant can be obtained. Their proposals for immediate or rapid "redeployment" from Iraq are championed with claims that our cause is already lost or with reckless disregard as to whether it will be if their course is taken.

The likely consequences of that stand are laid out in the full National Intelligence Estimate's "Key Judgments" revealed last week — not just the snippets leaked to the New York Times by liberals in the intelligence community.

Here's one key judgment: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Here's another: "Perceived jihadi success there (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere."

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2006 8:31 AM

You know, if the Dems really wanted to cement their prospects for taking over the House, they'd make a statement today (while this overblown Foley business goes on) stating they will not touch Iraq funding when elected.

Seriously. The way funding for the Iraq war is set up, cutting it off as Rangel promises he would do would create a horrible mess.

It's getting to the point that the only person that can keep the GOP from losing the House is George W. Bush.

Posted by: Brad S at October 3, 2006 9:09 AM

How would that raise gas prices?

Posted by: oj at October 3, 2006 9:20 AM

It has nothing to do with gas prices. It has everything to do with Dems gaining a lock on taking over the House. Promising to retain war funding would take the war issue away from GWB and the GOP.

Posted by: Brad S at October 3, 2006 9:30 AM

Iraq is not an issue.

Posted by: oj at October 3, 2006 9:43 AM

Brad S: You are proposing that the Democratic Party recuse itself on the issue of Iraq war funding. There are two reasons to recuse oneself: you will not be perceived as trustworthy on the issue; or you will not be perceived as competent on the issue. Which reason do you suggest the Democratic Party claim in this case?

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at October 3, 2006 11:19 AM
« U.N.I.E. (via Tom Morin): | Main | $40 A BARREL MAY NOT BE THE FLOOR: »