Redstate

Shoot, we may even RSVP first.

By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Great Netroot Betrayal | Kneel Before Zod | With Malice Aforethought — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[Lightly edited. - Moe]

That's the answer to the HuffPo's question: "Will The GOP Blindside The Democrats On Terror Issues?" Glenn Reynolds comments that a full-frontal blindsiding can take place when you've got a blind spot*. Anyway, you can pretty much ignore the rest of the article: Ed Morrissey summed it up perfectly well when he noted that its message was that "[m]ore than six years after 9/11, the Democrats still have no comprehensive national security or counterterrorism plan."

No, "DUBYA BAD! DON-KEYS GOOD! DUBYA BAD! DON-KEYS GOOD!" is not really a national security plan. Really and truly. Look, I don't care what your favorite blogger told you...

Read on.

Of course, the Democrats may decide that the best option on creating a national security policy is the simplest: give up and borrow ours. This courtesy of Tom Maguire:

Anti-war groups retreat on funding fight
By: Ryan Grim

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

Tom goes on to categorize the lipstick on this particular pig as a pious desire to not "tie the next President's hands" (stop laughing; that's from the obligatory NYT editorial). The official idea is to pass a law that requires the President to get Congressional approval before making a long-term deal with Iraq: the actual idea is to give the progressives a suitably contentious topic to beat their chests and howl about while the Democratic Party goes about the pleasant business of shearing the base.

Don't believe me? Think. This won't pass this year: George Bush will veto any bill that has this provision in it, and he'll sustain the veto. Remember S-CHIP? Remember how he won S-CHIP, in the end? [Note inserted by Jeff: This seems like an appropriate place to remind the electorate that Bush won on S-CHIP by a grand total of 411-3, in case anybody had forgotten.] He'll win this one, too, assuming it even passes a cloture vote in the first place. This really should be sort of obvious, by the way.

And after next January, hey: George W Bush won't be President. Somebody else will be. Let's look at the possibilities, shall we?

Dem President/Dem Congress. This legislation becomes redundant; no need for it.
Dem President/GOP Congress. This legislation becomes suicidal for the Democrats; surely they have no intention of giving us such a gift?
GOP President/GOP Congress. After you're done chuckling, concede that it's redundant, too.
GOP President/Dem Congress. No change, relevant... hey...

Looking at all of that, I can only conclude one of two things: either the Democrats are grandstanding, or they're actively afraid that we're going to win the Presidential election after all. Or, to put it into starker terms for the progressives: when it comes to your most cherished policy stances, your Party leaders are either being hypocrites or cowards. Again.

Personally, I think it's just pragmatism. Well, maybe pragmatism with a little bit of cowardice. After all, how to incorporate this into the narrative?

Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The answer is, of course, that the Democratic Party cannot. The ramifications of failure were contemplated; the ramifications of success were not. Which is why the retreat is happening now. The Democrats know that they will take a hit on this, but perhaps they can minimize the effects. A faint hope, but the best that can be hoped for under the circumstances.

And so we go back to the beginning. There is no "blindsiding" going on. There is merely the inevitable consequence to the willful (and frankly, stupid) decision by the Democratic Party to treat national security issues as just one more thing to play politics with. Some of you will now squirm, screech, pout, point fingers, name-call, accuse, whine, pound on the table, bluster, and do just about anything else beside accept this: go ahead and have fun with that. When you're done, the Democrats will still have to somehow deal with the fact that calling the GWOT "Bush's war" when it looked like the USA was losing it makes it very, very difficult to call it anything else, now that it looks like the USA's actually winning it. And trust us on this: we over here on the Right have no intention of making it easy for you.

Or, to use the antiwar movement's own term of art: Not In Your Name.

Moe

*This is certainly true of the Democratic party when it comes to natsec, but I'm leery of pushing the metaphor too far.