Democrats and Our Enemies

Joe Lieberman explains the difference. Remember him? They kicked him out of their party because he didn’t want to surrender in Iraq.

. . . Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.

Blame America First started a long time ago. So did Communist Party USA and Soviet penetration of organized labor and the Democratic Party. Did you think Alger Hiss was the only one?

More Lieberman:

. . . If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

They consider Bush the main enemy. They have since November of 2000. And they have done everything in their power to hinder, obstruct, undermine, and deny legitimacy. Had Republicans tried that on FDR he would have jailed them. Democrats tried that on Lincoln and he jailed them or exiled them to the Confederacy. Democrats have hampered the war effort of my side and automatically helped out that of the other side.

I question their patriotism.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Idea War

8 responses to “Democrats and Our Enemies

  1. Pingback: question it

  2. It was caused me to move away from the democratic party. There is no room for Truman Democrats or Scoop Jackson democrats anymore. The Leftists Democrats have prevailed….the fringe has become the mainstream. The USA is the worse for it.

  3. I imbibed disgust for New Dealers with my mother’s milk. My grandfather was on the losing side of several political vendettas, to the detriment of the family fortune.

    The Left, Transnational Progressivists, Democratic Socialists of America, and George Soros have turned the Democrat Party into a Trojan Horse that Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy would be ashamed of.

  4. http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/21/todays-must-read/#comment-23911

    Folks here might want to take a look at that argument.

    I’d be interested to know how folks here would approach the fundamental premise EC opened with.

  5. There’s a couple of things the Democrats have damaged, which were critical to ensuring American success against various dire challenges.

    For one thing, the concept of a loyal opposition, as the Republicans demonstrated in WWII and the Democrats noticeably did not demonstrate in the Civil War, was responsible for many of America’s greatest military victories.

    On another note, civilian control of the military is being eroded by Democrats for the temporary gain of getting an angle on attacking Bush for not listening to his generals. As if Hillary, if elected to the Presidency, will listen to her generals the way she demanded Bush did with his.

    What this creates is a motivation for general officers or other military officers to speak out against the policies of the President, so long as there is an opposition party that can benefit from such and can payback with funds or favors.

    What this creates is the McClellan situation, however, where civilian control of the military no longer exists. It is just an illusion, because the military is now going to turn more political rather than apolitical.

    There are many enemies and opponents to the generals that backed Democrats or provided Democrats with the fuel to criticize Bush on the war. Those enemies have currently not chosen political sides for personal gain or vengeance, but have only allowed retired military officers or personnel to speak out against the politics and positions of such retired generals.

    The overall framework of the law, which punishes people that speak out against their chain of command in public while active duty, is now only a rule people in the military obey because they have to. When they don’t have to, when they have retired or otherwise gone beyond the reach of military code of justice, then people feel very free to speak out against the President’s policies one way or another.

    This generates the exact opposite of an apolitical military tradition. People in the active service know these generals and are paying attention to the benefits they have accrued and received for speaking for the Democrat party platform. People are not all that slow and they will emulate behavior that has a reasonable chance of success, as evidenced by observed behavior.

    The Democrats seem to believe that they can take short term sacrifices like this and that when they get into power, it won’t be something they will have to deal with because Republicans can be trusted not to do the same thing as Democrats. That’s like using up your capital and justifying it by saying you still accrue interest from the rest of your capital. After awhile of this, the capital funds will disappear and so will your interest payments.

    That seems to be okay with the Left. In fact, that may even be the Left’s entire goal.

    There is only so much people will take where their rules of engagement are “don’t shoot” and their enemies’ ROE is “shoot all the time”. Either they will disobey the rules, cause the rules are suicide, or they have to find a way to change the rules.

    The former means the military will no longer obey civilian authority. The latter means the military will go into the political battlescape simply for self-survival.

  6. Sounds like you and that EC character have a history.

  7. A minor and only recent history concerning how people that use inductive logic purport themselves to be open minded, when their deductions based upon their personal philosophy and interpretations of events are absolutely limited to pre-selected views and beliefs.

    EC is one of those that believes in the scientific method as a fashion unto which to decide the great events of the day. And yet, human beings have never made judgments using scientific method, meaning inductive logic, rather we have always used deduction, deduction based upon our personal philosophies and views on history and what not.

  8. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation 🙂 Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Nonreader.