The things they do well.
By tacitus Posted in Democrats — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I said elsewhere
that Democrats don't care about foreigners, and indeed this does seem to be the
case: the party that prides itself most upon inclusiveness seems curiously
indifferent to the fates of strange peoples in faraway countries of which
href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22faraway+country +between+people+of+whom+we+know+nothing%22&btnG=Search">they know nothing
Which is in keeping with the past generation's activities, not only of the party,
but of John Kerry himself.
Read on.
To put it generously, the liberation of suffering humanity is not their forte. Not
that they care: it seems unlikely that Kerry loses sleep over the
href="http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=vietna">slave camps href="http://www.yale.edu/cgp/">genocides href="http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp">first policy victory
and the party as a whole is contentedly quiet over its general failure to support
the steps that forced the end of the Cold War.
Oh, give Bill Clinton credit for his penny-ante, half-done "
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3525168.stm">liberation
or delivery of that hapless land
into the hands of
href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krnjevicmiskovic200403190842.asp">KLA ethnic cleansers
empire to its demise. Then set it against George W. Bush liberating c.50 million
people from horrific tyrannies in just under three years.
If you
wonder why a representative of the Iraqi people showed up to
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/9/2/16227/78386">speak for the President
the DNC, here's your clue. Few abroad have the slightest faith that a Democratic
President -- and especially not Kerry, whose public life is a paragon of the
run instinct -- will have the fortitude to finish hard tasks of war once begun.
Indeed, it is for this reason that those
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165346,00.html">mysterious, unnamed foreign leaders href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid= 1093921794974&p=1006953079865">noxious tyrants
support him because John Kerry is evil as they are, but because his ideological
blinders abet their evil in ways that a more clear-headed leader -- for example,
our current President -- would not countenance. They, those they oppress, and
those they would oppress look to the dogged commitment of George W. Bush; and they
look to the record of John Kerry (whose pro-tyrant credentials are
href="http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040614-090436-8957r.htm">burnished
his
href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/12/192323.shtml">denunciation
seek Bush's defeat and consequently Kerry's victory -- see the photo -- and they
choose sides accordingly.
This is not mere inference. Red State has explored at length the
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/8/7/123128/4371">obvious, appalling intent of John Kerry to abandon Iraq
State has explored at length the
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/8/28/173457/558">inevitably savage, murderous result
this grim specter: instead of planning to strangle the nascent free Iraq in the
first few months of his term, he's now planning to do it
href="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5781 82§ion=news">sometime within that term's four years
everywhere who yearn for a liberal civil society breathe a sigh of relief: a few
more years before being tossed to the wolves. Their cups runneth over.
Wiser heads might note that unilateral, arbitrary ends to wars and preannounced
withdrawals are surefire methods of inspiring tenacity in battlefield foes. More
sage leaders might wish to impart some meaning to the deaths of the brave Americans
who have fallen in Iraq: for example, by allowing them a legacy of a free society
in the heart of a benighted region. Men with more backbone might set themselves to
seeing a thing to its completion, rather than confusing a completion with an end.
But what else could we expect? This is the Democratic way. This is more or less
what this party has stood for in the realm of foreign policy since 1972. No task
too perplexing to run from. No friends too dear to betray. And when it comes to
valuing the lives and futures of faceless masses of foreigners, Democrats like John
Kerry are forever willing to toss them, deaf to pleas and heedless of promise, to
the killers and tyrants among them.
So it shapes up in Iraq: John Kerry wants out. And he will get out. All it will take is for sufficient numbers of Americans to walk into the voting booth on November 2nd, give a passing thought to the inevitable slaughter, shrug, and vote Democratic. The insouciance of uncaring. The banality of evil. They're just foreigners.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Too Many Cooks . . . — Comments (1) »
The things they do well. 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is one of the first articles I've read on this site and would just like to offer my comments. You make some good points even though to me they seem to be secondary to the, shall I say strong dislike, of Dems and Kerry. It sorta camouflages them. Not unlike what I read on some other sites, only in reverse. But what the hell, I've never been accused of lacking an opinion on anything so I'll point out what I think is good and not so good. You can take it for what it's worth which is not much.
First I agree with your opinion of Dems in general and Kerry in particular about caring about foreigners. Although of all the people I know I couldn't name 5 that do. And I live in a very conservative area.
I would have mentioned Zainab al Suwaij by name. I give the Reps a lot of credit for putting her up there. Personally I think she helped their cause more than anybody else who spoke and I wish she had been given more time.
On the other side, I linked to Kerry's comment about pulling out in 4 years but had trouble finding where he said he'd pull out in 6 months. Closest I could find was a comment he made saying he would reduce the number of troops in one year. I think it was Kucinich who said 6 months. I get them all confused too. It's still a big difference and worth noting. To his credit he didn't have a 5 year plan. That always kills me, they're elected to a 4 year term and they always have a 5 year plan. I don't think 4 years is a bad goal but to put any time table on it now is ridiculous.
I'm not sure which "inevitable slaughter" I'll be thinking about when I vote.
One more good thing, "insouciance", great word, uses all the vowels. Ten points!
In the NPR interview discussed in the linked post, Kerry refers to significant withdrawals one year from now. Which comes out to the first six months of his presumptive term in office. Sorry, I should be more clear.
Here is a link to the 6 month pullout comment. Part of the confusion with this promise was that almost immediately after, Kerry said he would increase troops if commanders asked for more. Huh?!
But the credit for having a 4 year plan should be offset by the fact that he has the infamous Nixonesque "secret plan" that no one can know about.
He had to be the unluckiest person in the world. His crimes seem trivial now. I was stationed at Clark Air Base 72-74, 1961st Comm Group, telecommunications technician. I know a little bit about the "secret plan". Sad part is, I think he would have actually won that war within a year.
Arnold became a Republican because of Nixon... or at least he said so in his convention speech. That's a positive legacy in my estimation (of course, it won't outweigh the negative legacy).
It really wasn't so secret. Nor was it Nixon's. It was Kissinger's. He was trying to switch from more of a ground war to take advantage of our air superiority. Clinton did it with Kosovo. If you noticed, even though a lot of republicans said it wouldn't work, Kissinger wasn't one of them. Air power is totally demoralizing to a country. Look what happened here in less than one hour on 9/11. Scared Tucker Carlson so much he's gonna vote for Kerry. Here's an interview with Kissinger in 99:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/assessment_4-2.html
If you read the whole thing you'll see he also wasn't as concerned about casualties as Clinton was. We should be taking more advantage of it now in Iraq. I think a lot of the concern of the current administration was protecting the oil fields and infastructure. You need ground troops for that. You also need troops if you want civilian contractors on the ground there. You know, KBR and a few others.
. . . . and Franks said, "Don't leave until the job is done." (Great interview BTW)