I can't believe it's almost two months since posting. Shame on me. Fact is, I've had things to do.
Probably the most significant and outrageous thing that has happened has been the revelation of secret security programs by the Times, LA Times, Washington Post, even the Wall St. Journal. Between that and the General's Revolt, it's apparent that the Left has politicized this war to an unprecedented degree.
Much has been made int the media about the rabid partisanship that exists in Washington today--usualy with the suggestion that Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich, or of course the hated Bush administration is responsible for it. People tend to forget, or gloss over, the extraordinary lengths the Clintonistas went to in order to attain and consolidate their hold on power.
Jed Babbin has an interesting piece today all about the Clintons' penchant for appointing and promoting Generals based on political loyalty more than on the merits. Subsequent to that administration, many of these appointments (Clark, Zinni, Shinseki) have been mounting an insurgency of their own, busily undermining the administration's war effort. I guess it's a bit of a luxury that this war is minor enough that we feel safe enough to fight among ourselves.
Likewise, at the CIA, Rand Beers, another Clinton appointee, has seemingly been conducting covert ops against his own government.
Somehow, people need to recognize that the biggest obstacle to success in the war on terror is our own politics right here at home. I think the Democrat party leadership realizes that if George W. Bush gets credit for winning the war on terror, the party is through.
I've always been puzzled by the anti-war movement's fixation on the Iraq war. It just seems to me that they're against it because they're against it. It's political, not principled. At the end of the day, WMD or no WMD, links to Al Qaeda or no links to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was a brutal, unstable lunatic at the controls of a country smack in the middle of the most strategic region in the world, and an avowed enemy of the United States. Leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was a strategic error that led to a decade of escalating terror, which culminated in 9/11.
Why defend him?
Probably the most significant and outrageous thing that has happened has been the revelation of secret security programs by the Times, LA Times, Washington Post, even the Wall St. Journal. Between that and the General's Revolt, it's apparent that the Left has politicized this war to an unprecedented degree.
Much has been made int the media about the rabid partisanship that exists in Washington today--usualy with the suggestion that Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich, or of course the hated Bush administration is responsible for it. People tend to forget, or gloss over, the extraordinary lengths the Clintonistas went to in order to attain and consolidate their hold on power.
Jed Babbin has an interesting piece today all about the Clintons' penchant for appointing and promoting Generals based on political loyalty more than on the merits. Subsequent to that administration, many of these appointments (Clark, Zinni, Shinseki) have been mounting an insurgency of their own, busily undermining the administration's war effort. I guess it's a bit of a luxury that this war is minor enough that we feel safe enough to fight among ourselves.
Likewise, at the CIA, Rand Beers, another Clinton appointee, has seemingly been conducting covert ops against his own government.
Somehow, people need to recognize that the biggest obstacle to success in the war on terror is our own politics right here at home. I think the Democrat party leadership realizes that if George W. Bush gets credit for winning the war on terror, the party is through.
I've always been puzzled by the anti-war movement's fixation on the Iraq war. It just seems to me that they're against it because they're against it. It's political, not principled. At the end of the day, WMD or no WMD, links to Al Qaeda or no links to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was a brutal, unstable lunatic at the controls of a country smack in the middle of the most strategic region in the world, and an avowed enemy of the United States. Leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was a strategic error that led to a decade of escalating terror, which culminated in 9/11.
Why defend him?
posted by alwaysright at
5:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home