The Command Post Op-Ed Page

To My Democratic Congressman

My friend the anonymous New York Jewish Liberal who voted for Bush (whose previous essays you can read here and here) has some words for her Congressman (who represents the district which includes the World Trade Center).
— Judith Weiss

Where Democrats Go from Here

Dear Jerry,

Now that the people have spoken, I'd like to offer my wholly unsolicited advice.

The first step for the Democratic Party is to prove to the American people that it is serious about winning the war.

The first step in proving you are serious is to treat the Commander in Chief with respect.

That means no more seating Michael Moore in the Presidential Box at the convention, no more diatribes from Ted Kennedy that the war “is a fraud cooked up in Texas”, no more gleefully jumping on every military setback with an unseemly joy that sickens Americans everywhere.

Your attitude should be that of the firefighters and police who showed up on 9/11: We're here on the people's business. How can we help?

The constant search for apocalyptic Republican evil-doings must end. Therefore, drop your relentless attacks on the Patriot Act and other such legislation that may arise. The people believe, with good reason, that these laws protect us, and the more you demonize and belittle them, the more Congressional seats you will continue to shed.

Vow among yourselves that you will return to the time-honored tradition that partisanship stops at the water's edge.

By all means, offer constructive criticism and launch new ideas and iniatives that will contribute to the cause of securing our safety at home and spreading freedom abroad.

But offer it in the spirit of a loyal opposition.

The reason that four million more Americans trusted the President is because the Democratic Party gave them all too many reasons to doubt its loyalty.

In the process, many people who were life-long proud Democrats have fled from the party, including myself.

We will never consider returning until the Democratic Party successfully takes this first step.

Once you have established yourself as a vigorous, creative, constructive loyal opposition, you also need to develop a new set of ideas on the domestic front.

Try to promote programs that relate to people's real lives and liberate their inborn energies and ambitions, not programs that pander to their sense of angry victimhood.

Finally, respect the fact that this country cherishes its religious traditions. Judicial and legislative assaults on marriage and family life will continue to erode support and will inevitably lead nowhere but bitter defeat.

Respectfully,
Your Constituent

Richard Brookhiser Flunks His Own Test

From the National Review Online:

Shame on the liberal hawks (with a few exceptions- Ron Silver, Christopher Hitchens) who, when the test came, flunked.

This is the kind of knee-jerk support for Bush that really gets under my skin. The “liberal hawks” he's referring to are the editors at the New Republic, Andrew Sullivan and, I guess, myself. But did we really flunk? Or were we the ones who passed? If you think the election should have been a referendum on Bush's decision to invade Iraq- 18 months ago- or if you think the election should have been about deciding between Bush and Kerry's initial policies on Iraq, then you're doing a gross disservice to the American soldiers in Iraq, and to the Iraqi civilians who have been living through harrowing times for the past year and a half.

Kerry was the only candidate at the debates who proposed any sort of strategy for fighting the insurgency- the “spineless liberal” even went so far as to chastise Bush for pulling out of Falluja. Kerry kept serious foreign policy advisors around him- like Richard Holbrooke- who openly talked about how it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq. Today, at Kerry's concession speech, he even made a point of lecturing the left wing of his party on Iraq and its connection to the war on terror, and how both must be won: “Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror.” Does this sound like someone a serious hawk should be ashamed of supporting?

Granted, Kerry had been difficult to pin down during the campaign because he was appeasing his left-wing base as well as trying to make sure the moderates didn't jump ship. But you barely have to scratch the surface to find a person serious about seeing Iraq through. And based on what we've seen the last 4 years, it would be quite a feat to argue that Bush is more “competent” on the micro-level managing of the occupation in Iraq.

Bush made the right decision to go into Iraq. But his record in the post-war has been abysmal. I don't necessarily fault him for sending too few troops initially- to do so would be sheer Monday morning quaterbacking- but I do fault him for not changing troop levels when it became apparent we needed more boots on the ground. And I do fault him basing important military decisions- like pulling out of Falluja in April- on domestic politics. And I do fault him for picking the starting date of the war and then not getting armor to every soldier in the theatre. And I do fault him for Abu Gharib. No, he didn't personally humiliate prisoners, but he didn't hold those who did accountable enough, nor did he hold his administration accountable enough, nor did he investigate the prison abuse scandal thoroughly or transparently enough. And, because of this, we lost the moral high ground in a war that was desperately wanting for justification. Bush has dithered with the fight against the insurgency, and it is clear that our occupation has very little strategy behind it.

The election is over now and Bush won, but this debate is still worth having. Serious hawks- liberal or otherwise- should have voted for the candidate that stands the best chance of steering Iraq towards liberal, tolerant and consensual government. That is the “test” that all of us hawks just took. Brookhiser seems to think that wrapping yourself in the flag and showing your partisan colors is good enough to pass, which is precisely why he flunked.

President Kerry: The Sanity Cure for the Democrats?

“Cicero,” like Jeff Jarvis, Armed Liberal, and many other centrist bloggers these days, isn't undecided - he's unhappy. So he tries on Michael Totten's approach and attempts to convince himself that while he favours Bush, electing Kerry would finally force the Democrats to face reality:

“I want to see some political credibility build on both sides of the aisle, or in absence of that, a serious reality set in. We won't hear a President Kerry babble on about Vietnam in the midst of this unfolding war, because it's nothing like Vietnam — it never was, and never will be. His Vietnam experience will offer little guidance when, for example, he's playing the shell game with the Iranians, waiting for the nuclear nut to reveal itself, with the free world as the stakes. Kerry as president will finally bury Vietnam. Good riddance.”

In response, I get a vision of Owen Wilson's character in Shanghai Knights. Cornered and in deep trouble, with only one difficult means of escape, he looks incredulously over at Jackie Chan and says:

“What in our history together makes you think I'm capable of something like that?”

Is he? Are they? What does the evidence suggest? Is the reform of the U.S. Democratic Party a pipe dream? Are there comparable historical examples that might illuminate this discussion?

Read the Rest…

You Can Tell A Man By The Company He Keeps

Cross-posted to my blog

In light of John Kerry's puzzling insistence on a go-it-alone approach to North Korea in Thursday night's debate, I thought I'd make a little list. Admittedly, I'm doing much of this from memory, but there seems to be a certain consistency . . .

1. The North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that their war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end. John Kerry, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that the North's war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end.

2. The Soviet Union and its allies denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. John Kerry denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.

3. The Soviets, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe.

4. Daniel Ortega, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with his regime. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with Ortega's regime.

5. Moammar Qaddafi argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties. John Kerry argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties.

6. Our adversaries during and since the Cold War have argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense. John Kerry has argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense.

7. Fidel Castro has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba. John Kerry has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba.

8. In 1991, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the process of the Western response in the hopes that it would bog down. John Kerry said we should have drawn out the process.

9. Yasser Arafat has denounced the security fence erected by Israel. John Kerry has denounced the security fence erected by Israel.

We can add four more from the debate alone:

10. In 2002-03, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the inspections process and make it more multilateral. John Kerry says we should have drawn out the inspections process and made it more multilateral.

11. Kim Jong-Il wanted to have bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks. John Kerry says we should have had bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks.

12. Osama bin Laden says we helped him by invading Iraq. John Kerry says we helped bin Laden by invading Iraq.

13. The Iranian mullahs oppose US sanctions against Iran, wish to enter into agreements with the US, and insist that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power. John Kerry opposes US sanctions against Iran, argues that we should enter into agreements with Iran, and insists that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power.

Does Kerry have company on some of these stances? Yes. Can he defend some by pointing to occasions (as with Israel and Cuba policy) where he's since taken the opposite position? Yes. Is he actually an unpatriotic America-hater? Of course not. But remember: Time and time and time again, America's enemies have argued against us - and Kerry has echoed their charges. I'd rather trust the national defense to someone who's not so quick to echo the words and strategies of our enemies.

(A partial list of sources: Kerry's stances on Grenada and Nicaragua, the first Gulf War, the Cold War and Grenada again, the security fence, the Cold War again, Libya, Nicaragua again, and Grenada again, and Cuba).

9/11 Remembrances: 3 Years of The Best

9/11. Of course you remember where you were. That day was a summons, a call; many answered it, in many different ways. Our team at Winds of Change.NET is here because of it. So is The Command Post. In all probability, so are you.

This September 11^(th) we honour those who answered that call, and those who answer it still. Amidst the clamour and tumult of all the 9/11 related posts and articles over the past 3 years, some stand out and speak more truly to the essence of that dark day - and the challenges that lie before us still.

What part will you play? “Ah,” you say, “but I'm not a writer, or a hero.” Funny, but I've got a few people in here who would have said the very same thing.

• Fighting Back
• Heroes & Remembrance
• The Twin Towers' Rise… and Fall
• Humour
• Voices from the Aether

Operation "Buy Hitchens a Drink!"

Have you read Christopher Hitchens before, and wanted to show your appreciation? Well, our secret agents of Department 13 1/2 have been hard at work, and now you can do just that... by buying Hitch a drink, on the blogosphere!

Truly a fitting salute to our favourite leftist contrarian.

Here's the drill. We have a PayPal button set up below. Donating $5-10 to this campaign won't save the world or anything grandiose - just help buy Christopher Hitchens some bottles of Johnny Walker Red (his libation of choice). These will be delivered to Mr. Hitchens, along with a note of appreciation and thanks from the Blogosphere that will include all of the contributing bloggers and readers. Delivery will be handled by the aforementioned secret agents - and yes, we really can do it.

Over to you, ladies and gentlemen....

Bug-Out Kits & Other Smart Preparations

I know at least 3 bloggers that have full emergency kits ready to go in case of flood, fire, or other disaster. They're great ideas, and they can and do save lives - but what should go in them?

You have questions, Winds of Change.NET has answers - and people you can ask for clarifying information, if you wish:

• Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger's Super First-Aid Kit is useful in so many situations. If you stock only one of these kits, this is the one most likely to be used.

• Blaster's Bug-Out Box. “Remember, it isn't being paranoid, it is being prepared. And, from a practical standpoint, if you keep some stuff like this around, you won't be standing in line at the grocery store before the next snowstorm or hurricane or whatever other emergency might come.”

• Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger has one, too… but it's a “Get Home Kit,” and he explains the difference. This is a small, cheap day pack that we can leave in the car or at the office, and a set of supplies at home once you get there.

• Kim du Toit is another member of the Bug-Out Box brigade, which he describes as a “Grab-and-Go” - complete with details and even pictures. Mr. du Toit, who grew up as an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, also has a grab-and-go kit for his family's emergency guns. YMMV.

Covert Charity Revealed

[Parental discretion advised]

A previously covert organization providing support to US troops has now gone public with its own website. Operation Take One For The Country, whose members prefer the military-style acronym OTOFTC, has an unusual mission statement: “To discretely [sic] provide US troops shipping out overseas with the most sensually pleasing departure possible.”

OTOFTC leader Kelly McDonough tells how it all started:

It was back in February of 2003, when a lot of troops were leaving Ft. Benning. My girlfriends and I were partying at a bar frequented by soldiers. At some point one my friend leaves with a young soldier. The next day we questioned her and commented that the soldier didn't seem her 'type'. My friend just shrugged and said, 'Hey, his unit was going to ship out in a few days, so I decided to take one for the country', I knew right then and there that this was an incredible idea, so I started OTOFTC.

Even before it went public, however, the group aroused heated reaction from other groups. Annette Spargas of the UC Berkeley chapter of NOW spoke to newsletter author John Truman: “These women are really sick, they are prostituting themselves,” Spargas ranted; “they are objectifying their bodies to the killers of the Bush cabals war machine.”

McDonough shrugs off such criticism by pointing to well over 19 “officially unofficial batallions, as we call our groupings, across the United States.” The virtual group, or at least its notoriety, does appear to be growing fast, especially since the website and online store began operations.

a hat tip to Tim Worstall.

GENERAL QUARTERS

GENERAL QUARTERS — ALL HANDS MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS

THE MARINES NEED OUR HELP — THE TIME IS NOW!

HERE ARE YOUR ORDERS:

1. Go to this website.

2. Donate whatever you can.

3. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

GO! NOW! MOVE!

Why are you still here?

Not the following-orders type?

Need to be convinced?

OK – step in to my stateroom, grab a cup of joe, and we’ll talk.

* * *

Victory in the Battle for Iraq will not be achieved by force of arms alone – it will be won or lost in the hearts of the Iraqis themselves. The First Marine Division recently returned to the region with the slogan “No greater friend – No worse enemy.” We’ve seen the second part of that slogan at work in places like Ramadi and Fallujah. But what about the “No greater friend” part?

You know all of those international aid organizations that one usually finds in war-torn areas? They aren’t on the ground in Iraq – it's too dangerous. The Marines must do it all themselves. They have to fight the war, and at the same time win the peace.

Spirit of America does not have any staff on the ground in Iraq. Their “staff” is the First Marine Division. The Marines make requests for specific aid, and SoA gathers donations to purchase the items needed. The goods are then shipped to Iraq via military transport.

Spirit of America has no paid employees, and is run entirely by volunteer labor and contributions. They have very little “overhead.” And because they are a federally registered 501c3 public foundation, all contributions are 100% tax deductible.

This organization is the real deal. Back in January, Mrs. Smash and I spent a day at Camp Pendleton, helping pack Frisbees, school supplies, and medical supplies for delivery to Iraq. Major General James Mattis reports that these donations have been very well received.

Because Spirit of America is not a government agency, there’s very little red tape involved in the process. They are able to respond very quickly to specific requests. For instance, last week an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on a Spirit of America request for $100,000 to help establish seven local television stations in Iraq to counter the negative message of al-Jazeera brought immediate results. The funds have been received, and the equipment will be shipped within weeks of the initial request.

You can’t beat that.

But there are other requests that have yet to be funded. And Spirit of America isn’t just helping the Marines, they are also supporting the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

So you want to help with the war effort? Here’s your chance.

What are you waiting for, an engraved invitation?

Or maybe you're wondering what's in it for me?

Well, I've teamed up with a coalition of military bloggers (and some of our friends), and we're in competition with a couple of other blogger coalitions to see who can raise the most funds for Spirit of America.

Yes, I want very badly to win. I'm a competitive beast, after all. But no matter who raises the most money, the real winners will be the US Marine Corps, and ultimately, the people of Iraq.

No more yelling. You know what to do.

Campaigning On Defeat

Fred Thompson has an excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post (reg req'd):

Even the most partisan critics of the war in Iraq insist they are every bit as determined as President Bush to secure a democratic peace there. Regardless of whether the administration's decision to go to war was correct, they say, the United States cannot now afford to cut and run.

Yet, even as the president's opponents give lip service to the importance of victory, they seize upon every setback suffered, exploit every challenge ahead, to suggest that defeat is inevitably what our nation is doomed to suffer. Their fatalism is often veiled — allusions to Vietnam, innuendo about quagmires — but the implications are clear. For the president's critics, there is a domestic constituency to be won from failure abroad. They are campaigning on defeat.

… This is not just a question of political honesty. The global war on terrorism is not a game from which we can simply walk away when it seems it isn't going our way. At the same time critics of the Bush administration insist it should have done more to combat al Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 (on the basis of intelligence far weaker than that pointing to Hussein's weapons of mass destruction), they miss the more profound lesson that national tragedy should have instilled: that the only deterrent to terrorism is strength and that weakness — real and perceived — is an incitement to further attacks.

What is weakness? Weakness is when America's leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through. To our allies in the Middle East and beyond, these predictions of defeat send a clear and chilling message to hedge their bets, because the United States cannot be counted on. And to our enemies, they send an equally clear message: You can win.

Democratic Globalism

A very, very fine talk by Charles Krauthammer recently:

“We like Iowa corn and New York hot dogs, and if we want Chinese or Indian or Italian, we go to the food court. We don't send the Marines for takeout. That's because we are not an imperial power. We are a commercial republic. We don't take food; we trade for it. Which makes us something unique in history, an anomaly, a hybrid: a commercial republic with overwhelming global power. A commercial republic that, by pure accident of history, has been designated custodian of the international system… That is who we are. That is where we are. Now the question is: What do we do? What is a unipolar power to do?”

What, indeed. Krauthammer examines the various doctrines and choices open to America right now, and comes to some firm conclusions. Some of them may surprise you.

Read the Rest…

Books for Soldiers

* * *

Books For Soldiers is a soldier support site that ships books, DVDs and supplies to deployed soliders and soldiers in VA hospitals, via our large volunteer network.

If you have old, but usuable paperback books sitting around, collecting dust, why not send them to a solider for a big morale boost?

Many of our volunteers have received email and letters from the soldiers they have adopted.

Help us out, help the troops out, mail them your books.

Special Note to Bloggers!

I just wanted to drop a note of thanks to you blogging folks for helping to spread the word about BFS.

* * *

Via A Soldiers Blog.

A visit to the troops the mainstream press won't tell you about

* * *

What kind of man would do this?

At Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC, a Sergeant Major of the Army, Jack Tilley, was with a group of people who recently were visiting the wounded soldiers.

He saw a Special Forces soldier who had lost his right hand and suffered severe wounds of his face and side of his body. The S.M.A. wanted to honor him and show him respect without offending, but what can you say or do in such a situation that will encourage & uplift?

How do you shake the right hand of a soldier who has none? He decided to act as though the hand was not missing and gripped the soldiers wrist while speaking words of comfort and encouragement to him. But there was another man in that group of visitors that had even brought his wife with him to visit the wounded who knew exactly what to do.

This man reverently took the soldier’s stump of a hand in both of his hands, bowed at the bedside and prayed for him. When he finished the prayer he stood up, bent over the soldier and kissed him on the head and told him that he loved him. What a powerful expression of love for one of our wounded heroes! What a beautiful Christ-like example!

What kind of a man would do such a thing?

It was the wounded man’s Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush; President of the United States.

This story was told by the Sergeant Major at a Soldiers' Breakfast held at Red Stone Arsenal, AL, and recorded by Chaplain James Henderson,
stationed there.

Pass it on...the press won’t.

* * *

Via the Maryland4Bush web site.

Armed Liberal on Veteran's Day & Patrotism

I once wrote something about Veteran's Day over at Armed Liberal:

I Started To Write About Veteran's Day...and to thank the veterans alive and dead for protecting me and mine. I worried that what I wrote kept coming out sounding either too qualified, or would be interpreted as being too nationalistic.

And then I realized something about my own thinking, a basic principle I'll set out as a guiding point for the Democrats and the Left in general as they try and figure out the next act in this drama we are in.

First, you have to love America.

Read the rest...
 

Posted by Winds of Change at 11:46 PM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

Senate Democrats care more about politics than national security - according to their own memo

Senate Democrats care more about scoring political points than they do about national security - while we have soldiers dying in the field. Disgusting.

And this is according to their own memo. An excerpt:

* * *

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority.

* * *

Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year...

* * *

The emphasis in the above excerpts is mine. They admit that "[w]e don't know what we wil find," but they're going to push their fishing expedition as far as possible anyway for political points.

Then they'll launch their pre-ordained "independent investigation" - "probably next year" - since, politically, this will be the "best time."

Note the total lack of concern for the underlying substance of national security and intelligence-gathering issues. Where is the discussion of a need to beef up our nation's human intelligence resources? Nowhere. The Senate Democrats are all about politics - national security be damned.

Disgusting.

The story is also being reported by the Associated Press and Reuters.

And, of course, the blogosphere is on top of it in lots of places, like Instapundit, absinthe & cookies, and the Brazos de Dios Cantina.

A Democrat's National Security Rant

In response to my "Mogadishu Democrats" post over at Winds of Change.NET, Michael Totten penned "The View from the Center-Left"... and ignited a blog-war of sorts. Matthew Yglesias, who really ought to know better, penned "The Schtick." It more or less claimed Totten was writing these things for ulterior motives, and several members of his Comments section and other blogs joined in along similar lines. Welcome to High School.

Anyhoo, one of Totten's commenters summed up his own conflicts and beliefs in a way that drew particular mention. I won't say I agree with it (you'll see why soon), but it adds to the debate and is worth listening to if you want to take the political temperature of a certain segment in and around the Democratic Party....

A Democrat's National Security Rant
by M. Hess

For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been running on a racist platform. They've done everything in their power to fan the flames of racial hatred and combat the aspirations of minorities.

Yet every year, the Republicans stand up and say that they're champions of racial justice. No one believes this. Thier rhetoric is belied by their history.

On a similar note, there are Republicans who are not racists. I don't think George Bush is a racist; from what I can see, he's sincerely committed to equal rights. And a lot of the Republicans who are oposoed to affirmative action aren't racists either. Heck, while I am a Democrat, I myself am opposed to affirmative action.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable racist contingent in the Republican party. For every George Bush, there's a Trent Lott; for every Bob Dole, a Strom Thurmond.

The racism isn't overt any more. You'll never see Trent Lott make a speech against the evils of miscegnation. On the contrary, he'll publicly proclaim that he isn't a racist. He'll talk about his African-American staffers, and maybe he'll even get a few black leaders to campaign for him. Yet for some reason, his rallies are faithfully attended by the white sheet crowd. If asked, they'd probably say that they support Lott because of his tax policy, or his opposition to abortion, or whatever. But we all know the truth.

Lately, the Republicans have been trying to defend themselves against this charge by pointing out that Robert Byrd was once a KKK member, or that until the mid-60's, most racists were Democrats. But these pathetic arguments ring hollow. Given the above, if the most important issue in the 2004 election were racial justice, and if you were sincerely concerned about it, you'd be a fool to vote Republican.

This is a perfect analogy for the problem that Democrats have on national security.

For the last 30 years, the Democrats have been the party of weakness and appeasement. Their standard bearers have been people like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale.

The Democrats always claimed that everything changed during the Clinton administration, citing Clinton's willingness to use force in Haiti and Bosnia, but it is difficult to assess the signifcance of this alleged "change" because we didn't face a significant threat to our national security during that era. But the one big issue that did come up, that of gays in the military, provides a hint as to how the Democrats really feel about naitonal security. The disgust and condescention was almost palpable. The enlightened, progresive Democrats were bringing much-needed reform to those primitive, bible-thumping savages in the military. That's how the Democrats thought of the brave men and women who defend us. For the record, I agree with Clinton and think that gay soldiers should be allowed to serve in the military.

Today, despite this history, the Democrats say that they can be trusted on the issue of national defense.

Of course, there are Democratic hawks, just like there are Republicans who aren't racist. I think that Clinton did a good job restructring the military, and also think that if he were still President, he'd be doing a fine job with the war on terror. Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards seem like they are up to the task as well. I'm sure there are others. I will be voting for one of these Democratic hawks come primary season.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable anti-American/weak-on-defense wing in the Democratic party. For every Lieberman, there's a Dean. For every Gephardt, a Kucinich.

On another note, 200,000 people showed up at the antiwar rally in New York City. How many Republicans participated in the rally? 1%? 2%? I think we all know the answer. The Democrats try to explain stuff like this away by claiming that "some of those people are Greens"-- sure, and all Buchannan supporters are Reform Party voters, right, whatever -- or by saying that the peace movement is "the luantic fringe." Guys, the "lunatic fringe" is not 200,000 strong, okay?

Today, like racism, the anti-Americanism and weakness isn't overt. Dean doesn't issue position papers proclaiming "I hate America and will never use force to defend her." No, he says that he's willing to use force. But for some reason, his biggest, most vocal supporters are anti-American pacificsts. They say that he's a centrist, and that they like his fiscal conservatism and his "plain-spoken" manner. But deficit hawks and people craving straight talk aren't packing his rallies; his most fervent supporters are from the peace movement. Today they're shouting "Dean in 2004!" Three months ago it was "Bush=Hitler!" and "No Blood for Oil!" I am supposed to ignore this?

No, I'm not fooled. I don't believe Dean when he says that he'll vigorously prosecute the war on terror. I don't trust him to confront the North Koreans; If you were Kim, would you rather be dealing with George Bush or Howard Dean? And I don't think Dean is going to invade Saudi Arabia any time soon (not actually adovacating this, just illustrating my assertion that Dean will not take decisive action against even those countries who he has identified as our enemies.)

You can't seperate the man from the party. I believe that George Bush is basically a decent man. He's not a hate-filled fundamentalist, and he's not a racist. But I know that these people have a lot of influence in the Republican party. Bush may be a moderate, but if he's elected, there's going to be an Ashcroft in the cabinet. He's going to have to take Trent Lott's calls, and he won't be able to disavow him either.

The same is true for the Democrats. Suppose I take Dean at his word -- I'm not prepared to do that, but let's just suppose -- that he's not afraid to use force. That's great, but I know that the peace movement will have his ear. The weaklings and the appeasers will be helping to craft his polices. This is an absolutely terrifying prospect.

As a Democrat, during the primary season, I will be doing everything in my power to reform the party. My personal goal is to drive the weak anti-American leftists out of the party, or at least muzzle them.

But if this doesn't work, and those people get their wish, I'll be voting for Bush in 2004. I'll be campainging for him. I'll donate money to him. Like Michael, I don't agree with his polcies. I don't want to become a Republican. But nothing is more important to me than national security right now, so if the price I have to pay is a bigger deficit, more tax cuts for the rich and a few Republican Supreme Court justices, then so be it. These things aren't going to get me killed, but a foreign policy based on weakness and appeasement just might.

On another note I, like Michael, am disgusted by the way that Democrats have abandoend thier traditional principles in the name of partisanship. Democrats used to be for human rights and against repressive dicatorships. ONe of the reasons why I have always been proud to call myself a Democrat is because we stand up for the week and the oppressed. But in Iraq, when we were faced with the opportunity to liberate 25 million innocent people from a horrific dictatorship, the Democrats chose to do nothing. The extremists shouted "no blood for oil!" The more "moderate" Democrats urged us to accept the weapons inspections, an act of profound moral cowardice. Hans Blix was not going to liberate a single person from Sadaam's prisons. The UNMOVIC teams would do nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to stop the torture and rape of innocent people. We had 300,000 troops on the border. It was time to go in and save the Iraqis and put an end to the horror. Yet the Democrats said "do nothing."

Now, in the postwar period, they are doing their best to sabotage the occupation. We are trying to give a liberal democracy to 25 million people. We have put an end to torture and rape. What do the Democrats do? They complain about the Iraqi museum and blackouts in Baghdad. When we take casualties, the Dems act as if something has gone terribly wrong. Dems, I have a news flash for you: American soldies in the Middlee East may, just may, be the targets of terrorist attack. Yet they claim to be "shocked" by these developments. Incredibly, they also seem to have discovered a respect for our men and women in uniform. How touching.

The biggest problem I have with the Democrats is that they seem to assume that any problem is a major disaster and will last forever. I have more news for you: We'll restore the power in Baghdad. In a year, we'll have turned a lot of policing over to the Iraiqs, and our guys won't have to guard Baghdad University and the national bank any more. Casualty rates will go down, and the lot of the Iraqi people will improve dramatically. But don't expect the Democrats to realize this today or acknowledge it when it comes to pass tomorrow. They're too busy shouting "quagmire!" and "where's our exit strategy?" to give the matter any serious thought.

Are the Democrats putting forth any constructive proposals on how to fight the war on terror, other than "let's work with the French"? No. Instead of coming up with plans on how to improve our defenses and help the people of Iraq, they scream "Bush lied!!" and whine about intelligence failures.

For each of the above reasons, I too am disgusted with the Democrats.

Michael whew, sorry this post has been so lengthy. I got really worked up and didn't realize how long this rant was.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias sees some hope on the horizon, and writes a much smarter post: "Run, Wes, Run!"

Sean's Dream of Justice

Leftie blogger Sean LaFreniere had a dream. I've been known to have very vivid dreams myself, but this one takes the cake:

"Tonight I awoke from a dream and struggled to grasp the fading images and plot line. I felt that it was important that I get up and write about it immediately, because in the dream I had an epiphany, a vision if you will. Sure, dreams often feel more real and important than they do by daylight. Still, it felt like a four handed chord being played on a grand piano and I could not deny it.

***

In my dream my personal avatar wasn’t doing very well. I recall that for some reason I tried to tame a horse, but it bit me. Then I tried to run from some terrible fate and a herd of wild horses trampled my path. Someone tried to make a deal with the enemy on my behalf, if I stayed in a muddy ravine I was “safe”, but a wild eyed stallion chased me down anyway. I was trapped.

I tried to argue with the villain but he only laughed. I turned the other cheek and he hit it too. Nothing that I did made things better. And throughout the ordeal I kept reminding myself that I was doing The Right Thing, that I was following The Rules, and that I should be prevailing. But I just kept getting beat to the floor...."

The rest of his dream is worth reading. So is the real-world follow-up, as he talks about Iraq.

end my suspense! »

Mogadishu Democrats, 2003

"I knew we were in for a long season when we lined up for the national anthem on opening day and one of my players said, 'Every time I hear that song I have a bad game."     -- Jim Leyland, Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates

My blog-mates Armed Liberal and Trent Telenko have been carrying on a running debate here at Winds of Change.NET about the future of the Democratic Party, issues of leadership and foreign policy, and more. Just zip over to our GEO: U.S. of A category archives for a look.

For the most part, I've left it alone and covered the rest of the world. Still, there is one angle I'd like to cover. It's about the centrist Democrats who see the importance of the national defence issue, but can't seem to shake some crippling beliefs and behaviours. Untill and unless these habits are examined and corrected, initiatives to reform the Democratic Party and offer a credible voice on national security issues will remain stillborn.

Let's begin with yet another demonstration of Jane's Law, on July 4th, no less. Democrats for National Security (DfNS) emailed to say:

read the rest! »

Bob Hope at 100

Bob Hope, by all accounts, leads a quiet life at home with his wife of 75 years. Slower in movement, a little trouble with hearing and sight, but still Bob Hope.

I watched two separate specials about Mr. Hope in the past week. Two things stuck in my mind more than anything else. Christmas after Christmas he and his troupe were out there, entertaining the troops. He was there for literally generations for our young men and women, far from home, risking their lives to keep us, and uncounted strangers free.

Members of his troupe talked about the missed Christmases, and how their families dealt with it. The looks on their faces, the tone of their voices; there was something special about this. They looked upon it as a mission, a mitzvah, a holy work. These were true believers, in the good that is America's troops and what they do, and in Bob Hope.

I saw men and women cry as they recalled visiting hospitals. Decades later, their experiences moved them beyond words. One woman told of crying and being pulled aside by Mr. Hope and told that she needed to be stronger because they weren't there to cry for these boys but to make them laugh. Boys without limbs or faces. Boys dying, but one of their last memories would be of pretty girls and laughing with Bob Hope.

Other people have done what he did, too. But, I maintain that none have done it as well. Certainly not as long, or with as much dedication.

On this, Bob Hope's 100th birthday, let's take a moment to remember who the real man from "Hope" is and it's not a former President. Bob Hope is the man who brought "hope" to millions. We honor and thank him for that.

Further thoughts

Arts for the War

In light of the upcoming poetry reading planned by Poets Against the War, and the lack of recent entries at Poets for the War, it is refreshing to read about Edna St. Vincent Millay's impassioned polemic against American isolationism during WWII.

"On June 14, Paris fell . . . that morning, the New York Times, the Herald Tribune and the Daily News published Edna Millay's stinging attack against isolationism, 'Lines Written in deep Concern for England, France, and My Own Country.'" "Not in years," wrote the wire services, "has a poet sought so directly the ear of so wide a public . . . In an era in which poets have been accused of having too little to say to the many, Miss Millay suddenly launched her call to arms under the impact of the tragic drama in France."

"No man, no nation, is made free / By stating it intends to be," ran two of the lines from her poem. She didn't stop there.

On the music side, in addition to Stray Pooch's "A Million Mogadishus," Blogs of War's Dr. Frank has penned a ditty called "Democracy Whisky Sexy" (permalinks not working).

The Quiet Americans

The Emirates News Agency (the government-controlled press organ of the United Arab Emirates) has recently published a rather interesting speculation about the Baathist war strategy. The basic premise: if America takes enough casualties, she will lose heart and give up.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend not long ago. My short answer to this would be: fat chance.

My friend asked me this one: at what point would popular opinion here in America turn against the war? When we hit 500 casualties? 1,000? 5,000? 50,000?

My answer: I don't think such a number exists.

We lost about 50,000 men in the Vietnam war, he pointed out. I said that if we took that many casualties this year alone, it would probably not dent popular support all that much.

I believe that casualty figures, and pictures of the dead, have exactly two equal and opposite effects on American sentiment: 1) They cause people who are anti-war to become even more intense in their opposition, and 2) they cause those who believe in the cause to be even more firm about their desire to win the conflict, so those who fell would not have died in vain.

I believe that this is the pattern Americans have followed in all her major wars (note: major wars). Yes, all of them. We pulled out of Vietnam for one reason: Americans became convinced that it could not be won. I believe that this is the only reason, in the end, that really mattered.

So then, to be clear: I believe the anti-war protestors had no effect. Ditto the photos of soldiers coming home in body bags, or the pictures of the war on TV every night. I don't believe they had any significant impact, except to make those who were against the war more vehement--and those who were for it more stubborn.

Historians like Steven Heyward have noted that probably the most popular bumper sticker from that era was one that has largely been forgotten. It said, simply:

Win or Get Out!

I believe that this probably sums up the attitude of most Americans to most conflicts. We have no stomach for half-measures, for nuanced war. We have no love of violence, no taste for blood. We fight only when we feel we've reached the point of last resort, and then we fight with an awesome resolve that rarely wavers until our goals are met.

Americans have always--going back for 200 or more years--held to a mindset that is now called "The Powell Doctrine." You don't go if you can (honorably, and intelligently) avoid it. If you can't do so, then use everything you've got to win as quickly, decisively, and thoroughly as possible.

This didn't originate with Powell. Powell only put words to the rediscovery of something that's always been there. Americans have no love for conflict, but minimal tolerance for pussyfooting once the fight's on.

Think of John Wayne in The Quiet Man. There is no movie that better sums of the American ethos of violence. We don't like it, we don't want it, and we're often haunted by it in retrospect. But once the fight's on, by God we won't stop until one side or the other has crumpled to the ground.

The movie is a romantic myth. But it's a myth that resonates with most Americans deeply. If you haven't seen it, you should make a point of it.

Americans would have put up with more than 50,000 casualties in Vietnam if they'd have thought we could win. They've have put up with another 50,000, and another 100,000 still, if they thought we would win. The problem is that they stopped believing that--and at that very moment, public support ended.

This is not to say that Americans are stupid. If casualties reached a point where it seemed obvious that we were doomed to failure, we would shift our thinking quickly. But as long as we believed that we were doing more damage to the enemy than they were to us, as long as we believed would probably win in the end, we would likely fight to the last man.

It's how we've acted in every war in our entire national history. Including, I believe, the Vietnam war.

Anyone who thinks America will cut and run if we get a bloody nose and lose a few teeth is sorely mistaken. When led by a Commander in Chief who makes it clear that there will be no substitute for total victory, Americans will simply not quit unless completely pulverized.

I'm pretty sure this war won't spread beyond Iraq. I don't think it will need to, and I'm happy about that. Like most Americans, I detest bloodshed and violence, and have no interest in unnecessary conflicts. (I'm also looking forward to being quoted by some shallow fool who claims I hope we have more war. That seems almost inevitable.)

But I will say this: if this conflict should widen, or go on much longer than anticipated, I have little doubt that public support will only harden.

"Rev. Al asks Iraqi bigwig to protect American POWs"

From this:

The Rev. Al Sharpton met with the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday to make a “moral appeal” to the Iraqi government that no harm come to American prisoners of war.
Sharpton, a Democratic presidential hopeful, met with Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri at the Iraqi mission to the United Nation, on East 79th Street.

Aldouri, who declined to speak to reporters as he entered the building for the meeting, did not appear with Sharpton and the others afterward.

Al Gore: "I would never start this war if I were President"

Speaking via videoconferencing at the Economist Conference "Seventh Roundtable with the Government of Greece" tonight, according to novinite.com (The Bulgarian News).

Call me clairvoyant, but somehow I knew that.
(credit to Jonathan Garthwaite on TownHall.com's C-Log)

Report from the American street

I live in an area of New Jersey that has a large immigrant population; my landlord is from Portugal, although he and his wife have been in the US for decades and are now citizens here. When he came by to pick up the rent check tonight, he asked me what I thought about the war. I said that I thought it needed to happen. He agreed, then said, "But a lot of people seem to be against it."

I said, "Who is against it?"

He gestured with his hands and said, "You see it on NBC, CNN..."

I said, "Oh, please. That's television. That's not reality. What do your friends think?"

He said, "They think it's good. I think it will be good, for the people. They'll be more free."

We chatted a few more minutes, agreeing as well that rebuilding Iraq will be worth it if they have a good government after Saddam is gone. I thought it was a good example of people with different backgrounds, very different lives, seeing the value in the war. And I thought it was telling that the negative coverage on television had undermined his confidence that it was the right thing to do.

I did ask him what they thought in Portugal, but he just grinned and said, "They don't like Americans." I decided not to pursue that any further.

Congressman Hinchey's support of the Troops

By this war "we've created an untold number of Osama Bin Ladins."

Congressman Maurice Hinchey tonight on Hannity and Colmes on Iraq. They still don't get it.

Powell addresses AIPAC

Complete text of Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Annual Policy Conference on Saturday.

The President's vision requires an end to the use of violence and terror as a political tool. There is no other way. Terror must end. (Applause.)

The President's vision puts clear obligations on the Palestinians. The Palestinian state must be based on transformed leaderships and institutions that end terror. The Palestinian government must be transparent and accountable to the people. Above all, the Palestinian state must be a real partner for peace with Israel.

Israel has clear obligations, too. It must take steps to ease the suffering of Palestinians and diminish the daily humiliation of life under occupation. Israel must also help put economic hope in Palestinian hearts by helping revive the devastated economies of the West Bank and Gaza. Settlement activity is simply inconsistent with President Bush's two-state vision. As the President has said, "as progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the Occupied Territories must end." (Applause.)

Sure, Colin. As long as the terrorism stops first. No artificial timetable mandated by some roadmap dreamed up by a group of countries who vetoed UN approval of the Iraq war because they didn't want their business dealings with Saddam interrupted.

Rally to Support the Troops - April 12, 2003, 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. - The Ellipse, Washington, D.C.

PLEASE COME OUT FOR THE RALLY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 2003, FROM 12:00 NOON TO 3:00 PM AT THE ELLIPSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE BELOW AND AT THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE.

JUST ANNOUNCED:

CITIZENS UNITED FOUNDATION AND YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION TO SPONSOR:

"RALLY FOR THE TROOPS, RALLY FOR AMERICA"

G. GORDON LIDDY, ANN COULTER, LAURA INGRAHAM AND OTHERS TO HOST RALLY ON THE MALL FOR THE TROOPS.

SATURDAY, APRIL 12TH, 2003 AT THE ELLIPSE (located on Constitution Avenue, across from White House)

NOON-3PM

BRING YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. RAISE YOUR FLAGS AND SHOW YOUR PRIDE.

CHECK THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION AND NEWLY ANNOUNCED SPEAKERS. TO BECOME A CO-SPONSOR AT THE RALLY PLEASE CALL 703-464-8572.

The man who would be king...

(Via Little Green Footballs)

If it weren't bad enough for the French, multiple-conqueror of France Lance Armstrong supports the troops and the President:

In my opinion it's not really the place of an athlete to take a position here. And I do think there should be a strong deliniation from sports, war, diplomacy, and politics. I am getting asked this question repeatedly over here because a) I'm an American like the President, b) I'm a Texan like the President, and c) I am a friend of the President's. The war seems to be very unpopular here (lots and lots of protests) and it's normal that the press tries to get a quote regarding this.

What I will say, and have said many times, is that NOBODY wants a war. Not me. Not President Bush. Not Tony Blair. No one... but sometimes it may be unavoidable. I absolutely support the President and absolutely support our troops. Enough on this...

In the land of the testicle-less, the one-testicled man will be king.

Thoughtful Gesture

ONE STEP TREE & LAWN CARE SUPPORTS MILITARY FAMILIES WITH FREE LAWN CARE SERVICE

One Step Tree & Lawn Care of N. Chili, New York is offering free lawn care to the immediate families of United States military personnel in the company's service area. The first 500 families who contact One Step and verify that a relative who previously lived in the residence is now on active military duty away from home will qualify for the free service. The service will continue until the member of the military returns home or the end of the 2003 service season, whichever comes first.

One Step owner Bob Ottley wanted to find a way to relieve military families from the extra burdens facing them while a loved one is on active duty.

"Providing free lawn care service is a small way we can help the families of our fighting men and women," explained Ottley. "Many of the families whose primary providers are on active duty sacrifice personally and financially. Maybe this will help take one chore off their shoulders."

To apply for the free lawn care service, call One Step at (585) 594-1095. Families must live within One Step's current service area, which includes all of Monroe and Genesee Counties and northern Livingston County.

I blogged about this earlier in the week. If you'd like to express your appreciation for this thoughtful gesture, their e-mail is info@onesteptreeandlawn.com.

Chuck Simmins