Powering Up the Fringe
By Callimachus | Related entries in Bad Decisions, General Politics, In The News, The War On TerrorismGerald Baker ponders the American Democratic leadership from across the pond:
Half the Democratic members of the Senate � oddly enough, including all those with serious presidential aspirations � John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden � voted for the war in 2002. The awful truth about many of these people is that their cynicism in distancing themselves from their support for the war is only matched by their cynicism in originally supporting it.
Let me be clear: some Democrats � Joe Lieberman springs to mind � supported the war for the right reasons, and continue to do so. Others � Ted Kennedy, Russell Feingold � opposed it all along. But most of those now recanting made a straight political calculation in voting to authorise force in the first place.
These were the ambitious Democrats who thought they had learnt the lessons of 1991. Then you may recall, the vast majority of the party’s senators voted against the first Iraq war. The arguments then were not about right but might, or America’s perceived lack of it. There was talk of hundreds of thousands of body bags. Most of the Democrats, fearing the country was still in the grip of Vietnam syndrome, wanted nothing to do with it. They wanted to be able to say afterwards “ We told you so�, and to reap the political rewards.
In the event fewer than 200 Americans died, and all those Democrats who had voted against the war were suddenly political carrion. So, confronted with a similar choice in October 2002, they did not want to be on the losing side again. If it was another cakewalk, and they had voted against it, the damage to their credibility as presidential candidates would be irreparable. Best to vote for it to burnish their national security credentials.
But it wasn’t a cakewalk. And now they’re trapped. So they resort to the defence of the coward throughout history: “He made me do it.� Most Americans have better memories.
[Hat tip: American Future]
And so now the GOP House leadership has clevery moved for a quick vote on Murtha’s proposal for a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Clever. It will further embarrass the Kerry/Edwards/Biden/Clinton Democrats by forcing them to get back on the fence, or add another flop to their flips.
All of which means, the moderates, the Demcrats closest to the center will end weaker than they began: more compromised, more waffle-looking.
And that can only mean the power in that party will gravitate to the extremes. Kennedy. Feingold.
It’s not good news for those of us looking forward to a change for the better in 2008.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 18th, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, General Politics, In The News, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 18th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Victor Davis Hanson (i.e. the Genius) wrote a similar piece today; the money quote: regarding Dems who voted for the war:
‘I doubt any will ever say, “I voted to cover myself: If the war proved swift and relatively low-cost like Bosnia or Afghanistan, I was on record for it; if it got bad like Mogadishu or Lebanon, then I wasn’t the commander-in-chief who conducted it.”‘
I say, Rudy in 2008.
November 18th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
It’s disappointing to see such a stale and baseless partisan meme being repeated here. It’s not inconsistent to say that “I now oppose the war based on information which wasn’t given to me at the time when I voted for it”. TNR’s opening piece last week is spot on on this point. Democrats (and I guess Republican congressmen) did not have access to the same information as the Bush administration did. They were being fed a carefully designed picture which whitewashed the debates and ambiguities within the intelligence communities.
Further Kerry’s argument that his vote only authorised the war if it was necessary should actually hold water. Saying “I authorised force to give the executive the bargaining power it should have”, while trusting that that power would be used responsiby gives him (and others) the right to get angry and recant if they see that power being used irresponsibly. And much of the information on which such a judgement could be made has only come to light in the years since the war.
November 18th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Congress did not see Bush’s most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief. Yet unless you and I see it, we don’t know whether it offered intell that made Iraq look even more dire, or that it questioned the intell Congress saw. I suspect a bit of both.
How curious was Congress about all this at the time? “Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.”
November 19th, 2005 at 3:13 am
The House vote would’ve been a clever maneuver if the Republicans had executed it properly. Instead they didn’t use Murtha’s resolution. I have no idea why because that would’ve boxed in the Dems much more effectivly. Plus allowing a member to imply that Murtha is a coward and not fit to be a marine was politically daft. The media loves a food fight and that’s what the story will be.
Personally, I don’t see how this vote will have any impact at all on Clinton, Kerry or Biden.
November 19th, 2005 at 10:27 am
I believe the entire impetus of the Iraq war is an insecure man`s desire to prove that he can live up to his daddy`s model. Everybody on Bush`s cabinet knows he has a long history of being a loser,(everything he touches tuurns to crap), and they just exploit it. I hope he`s out of office when he realizes the only way to totally end terrorism is to vaporize the planet.
Curtis Walter
November 19th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Curtis Walker,
I suppose Tony Blair and John Howard had equally silly reasons for going to war. You might recall that the United Nations passed resolution 1441 that called on Saddam to come clean on its WMD programs and cease its massive human rights violations or face severe consequences. Did Saddam comply? No. Did the Senate vote on going to war? Yes. So, it’s pathetic to think that Bush acted unilaterally.
WW2 ended Nazism and Japanese imperialism. The Huns are no longer putting Jews in gas ovens and the Japs are no longer raping and pillaging in China. Back then our forefathers had guts and Democrats were hawks. Now the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy will go down in history as the White-flag Democrats.
The long-term mission is to destroy the totalitarian ideology of Islamic Supremacy and all those who preach it. If it can’t be done you will eventually have to choose between living in Dhimmitude, having your head cut-off or converting to the most virulent form of Islam.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
But Pat, don’t you realize that people are only motivated by chemical processes in their brains? That all conflicts are attributed to income distribution and class disparity? That morality and the free will to choose evil are mere superstitions long proven false by science? That man DOES live on bread alone and people only act violently out of frustration because they aren’t given enough bread by the capitalist pigs that hoarde it?
“Terrorism” and “Islamic Supremicism” are just racist terms used by neo-con zionist fascists (i.e. capitaliststs) so they can drum up support and conquer the worlds oil supply.
These “terrorists” are actually the Revolution, fighting for social justice in the third world. How do I know that? Well isn’t it obvious - they are poor, exotic, and brown skinned. Bad guys can only be rich, white, or jewish. Where have you been for the past 1000 years?
Back me up Curtis!!