About Me

Name: bphil
Loading...

ANALYSIS: The Dems Iraq message problem

The Democrats have a message problem this election season when trying to convey a coherent position on Iraq and the greater war on terror. It easier to start with what they don’t think: that is, they don’t think Bush, Rumsfeld, et al., were right about anything.

OK, fair enough. I think former Reagan Navy Secretary John Lehman spoke for a lot of us conservatives when he wrote “We’re Not Winning This War” in the Washington Post last week. But Lehman’s point is that while Bush isn’t fighting the war on terror properly, it is still a fight that must be engaged.

This is where the Democrats message problem comes in.

The war on terror isn’t just about seeking out al-Quaeda and responding to terrorist attacks. It’s about those things, but also fundamentally changing the Middle East from a place of constant violent sectarian and religious conflict to a place that respects differences and solves conflict without violence. In large part, the American people support that vision.

So as the Democrats excoriate Bush for his handling of the war on terror and Iraq, they make no distinction between what Bush is doing wrong and what could be done right to achieve the grander vision. That’s where Republicans hit them with having “no plan”.

Further, the base of the Democratic party does support unilateral withdrawal of American troops which would be a complete abandonment of the new future of the Middle East. That conflict, between the far-left  and the average American, is what is going to make these elections closer than the political strategists would have us think. We don’t want to lose, we want to win. And the American people have shown a willingness to stay and fight if we believe in the cause and that victory is possible.

The Democrats message problem is that they think they cannot support victory without supporting Bush. They are telling the American people that the only solution is retreat.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Morning Mirror

Couric under the microscope:  WP's Tom Shales rips Katie; LA times coverage

Just what we need:  More coverage of Capitol Hill; NYTimes coverage

ABC defending 9-11 miniseries as "dramatization"

News junkies rejoice: Google expanding news archive
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OPINION: WP's Robinson should make up his mind about Bush

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson can't make up his mind about George Bush. On August 22, Bush was 

    "[trying] to impose [his] simplistic, black-and-white template on a kaleidoscopic world".

But on September 5, Bush is a hypocrite for not applying the Bush Doctrine exactly the same way on every country. 

    [Cheney] told the VFW that the "Bush Doctrine" is to hold accountable "any person or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists." So what about the newly installed Iraqi government, with its suspected ties to Shiite death squads? And what about the Pakistani government, which gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda safe harbor?

So Bush has a "black-and-white template" except when he doesn't. Get it?

Further, there are several things wrong with Robinson's second statement. Whatever the position Pakistan's President Musharraf must publicly take, in private there has been no greater ally to the U.S. than Pakistan (perhaps only Britain). Several recent authors have detailed the efforts of Musharraf to rid his country's intelligence service and military of Taliban and al-Quaeda sympathizers post-9/11 - namely James Risen and Ron Suskind, hardly friends of the administration.

Second, it's one thing to take a hardline stance toward a two-bit terrorist harborer like Syria.  But Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons and Pakistan does. Musharraf has narrowly averted several attempts on his life by Islamic extremists retaliating for his cooperation with US forces. If Musharraf were taken down, there is no question the void would be filled with radical Islamic extremists who would then control the nukes. That is truly the free world's worst nightmare.

Diplomacy sometimes makes choosing necessary evils, well, necessary. But that's the nature of diplomacy and there's ample evidence the President is pursuing it. Take for example, the take down of A.Q. Kahn, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program who ran an underground proliferation ring. Kahn is revered in Pakistan and Musharraf would be risking considerable public outrage in Pakistan if he were to just hand him over to U.S. authorities. Imagine U.S. authorities sending Einstein to Japan for questioning.  Still, Musharraf did take Kahn down and end his nuclear technology trade.

Would Robinson instead have the perfect be the evil of the good?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »