Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Democrats’ Bad Investment

The Democrats’ Bad Investment

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq. Their political fortunes are becoming more and more tied to bad news in the war on terror.

Each day brings a new barrage of speeches or press releases from Democrats, with the lone notable exception of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, that revolve around bringing an end to our involvement in Iraq. They use phrases like “immediate withdrawal” or “timetable for withdrawal.” They claim that the country was duped into going to war in Iraq, that intelligence was misused to promote the war to the American people (this, of course, being the same intelligence that to which they had access).

It is now a matter of record that these are essentially the same Democrats who were entirely in favor of employing the use of force in Iraq. They are the same Democrats who filled the airwaves with rhetoric affirming the danger that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed and the importance of preventing him from being able to employ (or make available to terrorists) weapons of mass destruction. The same Democrats who voted overwhelmingly in favor of congressional authorization of the use of force. What changed? In short, politics.

The fact of the matter is that no such operation in a large, ethnically and religiously complex country could be expected to proceed without a hitch. Or that a country with no history of democratic self-rule could be expected to quickly employ the same while under fire from terrorists. It is an operation that faces a determined fanatical enemy which must be overwhelmed, not by US military might alone, but by a free Iraqi people. This can not and will not happen overnight.

While patience is surely a virtue, it’s not a quality that is always in the greatest supply in our drive-through consumer culture and 24-hour news cycles. Our attention spans are limited and tolerance for a drum beat of the “same old, same old” in the news every day is not well-suited for dealing with the problems associated with incubating a democracy in the middle of a region of the world known more for terrorism.

This reality, inevitably, has begun to be reflected in public-opinion polls, which has in turn led to its being reflected in the public position of Democrats looking for political advantage in advance of the 2006 elections. Bad news fuels the opinion, which leads to the polls, which leads to the Democrats’ current position. In other words, they are invested in continuing bad news and a defeatist mindset.

They have made a bad investment. If there’s one thing that Americans like less than bad news, it is losing. We have an innate desire to win and we’re an optimistic “can-do” people. That fact has been proven again and again, most recently in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, 2001.

While the mainstream media have refused to recognize it, much less promote it, we (and the Iraqis) have enjoyed far more successes than setbacks since Saddam’s fall. Most of Iraq is secure. Commerce is under way. Two free and fair elections have been held. A constitution has been written and adopted and another election for a permanent government will be held next month. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been trained to secure their own country, with thousands more being added to their ranks each month. All of this in the space of less than two years. Hardly a failure.

Further, we’ve seen communications intercepted from terrorist leadership complaining of their lack of success at destabilizing the country and intimidating its citizens from participating in their new democracy. Further, we’ve seen increasing numbers of Iraqi, Jordanian and Muslim opinions in general turn against those who have resorted to violence. It is their country that’s being destroyed, their relatives being murdered and they are tired of it. More and more they have begun to come forward and share intelligence on where and how the terrorists are operating. They want their country back.

This is key, because just as most democracies have had to undergo various types of struggles, political or military, to secure self-government, the Iraqis are facing their struggle. They’re paying the price for their independence, and when they’ve succeeded it will be far more valuable to them. They are investing in their future.

In the meantime, Democrats here at home are investing their political fortunes in failure.

Powered by

About Drew McKissick

Drew McKissick is a political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience specializing in political strategy, planning and organization as well as the development of grassroots related political action programs. He has worked as a political activist at the local, state and national levels, and has served in elected and appointed positions at all levels of the Republican Party, including serving as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also writes a regular column providing analysis and commentary on current events.
  • Michael

    Actually, it is entirely this administrations bet. If by next year, this war is still going on as it is right now, the republicans will lose the majority.

    There are good things going on over there, but this administration has made every step of the process that much harder to accomplish.

    Are republicans so blinded to this presidents failure. When we talk about the war, republicans speak as though democrats are the majority.

    If you feel this war is going well, then hope on a flight and go to this blossoming democracy you think Iraq is. Spend an evening talking with the locals. Ask them how they feel about America.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Then it was brilliant on the part of the administration to act so incompetently over the last two years. Their stupidity forced anyone with a conscience who wasn’t bought and paid for (i.e. republican members of congress, the whores at fox news, and yourself) to oppose it.

  • SonnyD

    There is a blog called Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone, Yahoo is carrying it as a RSS feed. Check out the amazing things the Kurds are doing in northern Iraq. This is the kind of news the liberal media is withholding from us. I wonder who bought and paid for the one sided news we are getting.

  • Baronius

    Drew, I hope you’re right that the Dems will have to pay for their “investment”. But that rarely happens in matters of foreign policy. Why, I don’t know. Maybe because we elect forward. But you’d think that a party with a consistently bad foreign policy would have to pay for it.

    In my lifetime, I’ve seen the Democrats assert that Vietnam and Cambodia would be better off without us and that the domino analogy was false. (They don’t talk about the boat people or Pol Pot.) The Democrats scoffed at the idea of communist infiltration. (They’ve been quiet since the KGB records have been opened.) Reagan was laughed at, or feared, for believing that the West was morally superior and would triumph through military and economic strength. (Again, silence.) They voted against every weapons system saving soldiers’ lives today.

    Are you sure that the pacifict wing of the party will be criticized for their latest errors? Or will they say, as they did with the Cold War, that “we” won it, so let’s move on to the next topic?

  • steve

    Sonny, that is very true. it is one sided information. leave it up to the leftist, commie, pinko bastards to provide us with such poor news coverage. only if you could hear more stories. god I hate liberals….

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    the issues in comment 4 would have been a much more well-rounded interesting post.

    This one just kind of had one point and kept repeating it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I have to agree with Temple. There’s a very good point in this article, but there could have been so much more.

    The question it did raise for me is this – who do you find more appealing? The party who invests their political future in the freedom of the Iraqi people or the party who invests their political future in civil war, mayhem, terrorism and the victory of theocratic fascism.

    Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Here’s what I don’t find appealing – the current crop of Republican idiots who are currently in charge. In 2006, I shall cast not one vote for a Republican in any race, be it local or federal.

    Actually, I agree with Charley Reese, let’s vote every single damn incumbent in every single race in the United States out of office and start anew.

    “who do you find more appealing? The party who invests their political future in the freedom of the Iraqi people or the party who invests their political future in civil war, mayhem, terrorism and the victory of theocratic fascism”

    I think that’s the Republican party in both instances. God knows they used the terrorism aspect in 2004 to scare the living bejesus out of everyone and into voting for them.

  • JR

    Baronius: In my lifetime, I’ve seen the Democrats assert that Vietnam and Cambodia would be better off without us and that the domino analogy was false. (They don’t talk about the boat people or Pol Pot.) The Democrats scoffed at the idea of communist infiltration. (They’ve been quiet since the KGB records have been opened.) Reagan was laughed at, or feared, for believing that the West was morally superior and would triumph through military and economic strength. (Again, silence.) They voted against every weapons system saving soldiers’ lives today.

    The domino theory was disproved. We did the experiment: we let Vietnam fall to the communists and communism did not spread to Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillipines or Australia. Q.E.D. (In fact, it only spread to the countries we bombed. Hey, American bombing leads to Communism!)

    Also, it was Carter who started our military build up after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Kennedy and Johnson who got us into Vietnam, and Truman who got us into Korea. Reagan invaded Grenada, and pulled the Marines out of Beirut.

    And I seriously doubt that Democrats voted against every weapon system “saving soldiers lives today”. (I thought weapons systems were supposed to kill soldiers?) In fact, I doubt that you can demonstrate that Democrats have consistently opposed Defense spending.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com demabloggery

    Right. It’s the DEMOCRATS fault that the Republicans backed a President who sent five guys to Iraq to search for WMD that apparently never existed and decided to build a democracy in the least democratic place on earth, and when it doesn’t work because it was a fucking stupid idea in the first place, it’s the fault of the democrats. There is a point at which being continually on the attack against everyone in the world, including your own countrymen, is going to cause a backlash.

%d bloggers like this: