DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA
DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA—AT
LEAST NOT ONE THEY’RE PREPARED TO
TELL YOU ABOUT
By
Ken Eliasberg
Since George Bush took office in 2003, have any of you seen a positive substantive proposal from the Democrats on any issue? Let me help you—NO. All you hear from the Dems is what they’re against (which is anything that George Bush is for). Do you have any idea of what they are for? Again, let me help you—NO! You couldn’t possibly, because they haven’t even given you a hint as to what they would do to deal with any of the problems of which they so frequently complain - and they won’t. Why not? Because if they did, most of you, including lots of Democrats, would not vote for them. But before we deal with their real agenda, let’s look at the positions they have taken over the past 5 years. Let’s see—they opposed wiretapping methods being employed by the NSA to listen in to calls involving an al Qaida operative to a U.S. citizen (now do you know anyone who is conversing with an al Qaida agent; if so, aren’t you kind of curious as to what they are talking about—particularly since your life might depend on the outcome of their conversation?). They (particularly Harry Reid) were elated about defeating an incarnation of the Patriot Act—now there’s a good one. They are against torture or even trying to gain clarity from the Geneva Convention because it would encourage our enemies to treat our captured operatives in a slightly less humane way—hellooo, we’re already being nice to these guys, and they are rewarding our kindness by cutting off some of our people’s heads. What do the Dems think they might do if we clarify the Geneva Convention, eat our boys and girls for dinner? And torture - we have never espoused or employed it (although I am certainly for doing so when to do so might save 2 or 3 million lives). Terrorists are by no means the types contemplated by the Geneva Convention, and the Hamdan decision of the Supreme Court is an aberration.
What else? Oh yes, they griped about Abu Ghraib. For putting panties on a prisoner’s head, Ted Kennedy (that monumental zero) suggested that our administration of the prison was comparable to that of Saddam Hussein. Let me see; we put panties on a dirtbag’s head, Saddam tortured them to death, and the terrorists behead our people. Tell me which one is worse; what am I missing here?
As an aside and an interesting touch of irony, I gather that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are begging for the Americans to return now that we have turned its management back to the Iraqis (who seem to have a better feel for how to deal with scum like these terrorists).
After Abu Ghraib, the Dems went on to complain—incessantly—about the conditions at Guantanamo Bay. I believe it was Dick Durbin, another genius, who compared this facility to a gulag or concentration camp. Thereafter, some U.S. penal authority went down and concluded that those conditions were better than that which exists at many of our prisons in this country. In addition, I have spoken to General Paul Vallely and Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu (both of whom have visited the GITMO facility) and they assure me that prisoners there are treated with far more decency than at most penal facilites (and certainly far more decently than they deserve; bear in mind that this facility houses the worst of the worst). I get the distinct impression that nothing short of Club Med or the Four Seasons will satisfy the Dems insofar as suitable arrangements for housing the most vicious of these terrorists.
Then, of course, there was Haditha, where it appears that some of our boys may have killed innocent Iraqis. If so, they should be punished. That said, I remind you again that we are at war, and war is violent, messy, and neither precise nor predictable. We train our military to engage in violence. These are young men and women operating under extraordinarily difficult and dangerous conditions and who, in addition to being concerned about their own well being, see their friends and fellow soldiers killed and wounded all around them on a daily basis. Yet the Dems expect them to conduct war in accordance with rules laid down by Emily Post. I am surprised at how well behaved our troops are and how few of these incidents occur. I guaranty you that far less of these situations occur today than was the case in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. I am not suggesting that they are acceptable, merely that they are understandable during a war. Hell, the Dems are more vicious here than anything our kids are doing over there. They appear to want to accord terrorists all the rights accorded a domestic criminal; while this may be an exaggeration of their position, it is not much of one.
Then there was the nonsense with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame which launched an expensive and time consuming investigation, leading to an incredibly inappropriate indictment of Scooter Libby, and, which, when the smoke clears, will do little more than confirm what has already been confirmed—to wit that Joe Wilson is both an empty suit and an incredible liar. They appear to find little wrong with the leaks on the SWIFT program—the program that was intended to monitor terrorist funding sources. Perhaps because it was consistent with doing anything and everything that they could to both complain about our intelligence inadequacies while, at the same time, doing all that they could to completely emasculate that function. Query—how do you effectively fight a war when your ability to check on the enemy’s movements is effectively blunted? Indeed, their whole effort here, as elsewhere, is not to advance the country’s interests—rather it is to engage in an incredibly dangerous and destructive form of gotcha politics. And, by the way, this is nothing new; in a post-election column I shall deal with the left’s very successful pre-9/11 efforts to completely emasculate our intelligence capacity.
For God sakes, we are at war! I feel the need to constantly remind the reader of this fact since Dems are doing everything they can to blur the lines between their propaganda and reality. In this context I remind you again of how other Administrations have responded to what they perceived to be an existential threat: Lincoln/Civil War—suspended Habeus Corpus; Wilson/WWI—incarcerated Eugene Debs (head of socialist party) for the duration of the war for intemperate (subversive in Wilson’s eyes under Espionage Act) language; and FDR/WWII—interned Japanese American citizens for duration of war. Now I am not suggesting that these actions were appropriate (or even lawful); what I am pointing out is that when your survival is at stake—and using foresight as opposed to hindsight—extreme measures may (and probably should) be taken. Why? Because, in the final analysis, survival is absolutely necessary to assure the continued viability of any “right,” whether derived from the Constitution or a source of lesser stature. Local law enforcement authorities might describe situations such as this as “exigent circumstances” —circumstances which require action that might normally be considered to be somewhat severe. I can’t think of anything more “exigent” than our very survival. With that in mind, consider the left’s post-9/11 offerings noted above.
In short, the Dems have no stated policy; what is their unstated policy, and why haven’t they told us about it? Because they know very few would support it. Now one might reasonably argue that their true leanings can be found in the manner in which they vote. And this is true, but, unfortunately, many voters don’t read the lines, let alone take the time and trouble to read between them. So let me help you. The Dem’s real policy positions are quite simple. On the domestic front, a cradle-to-grave welfare state. You know, entitlements for everyone (notwithstanding the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious that we cannot afford the ones already in place—I’ll have a lot more to say about that in the future, and it will have nothing to do with partisan politics; it will have everything to do with simple mathematics). On the foreign policy front, the Dems position is equally simple—and just as hopelessly flawed as their stand on domestic policy—turn it over to the United Nations (a body that is, as I have previously observed, feckless, corrupt, and anti-American; I’ll have a lot more to say about that as well in future columns).
If you think that a cradle-to-grave welfare state—i.e. unending entitlements—will work, take a good look at Europe. Also, take a look at Mark Steyn’s latest book, America Alone “The End of the World as We Know It, Regnery Publishing (2006). Steyn is, quite simply, brilliant, and anything he does warrants your examination, but this book is a must read. And for any of you who think that the U.N. can do anything for anyone, let alone, the U.S., you just have not been paying attention (to Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Darfur, or any other world crisis situation). Indeed, look what they did with Iraq—17 resolutions all designed to give Iraq, France, China, Russia, and Kofi Annan time to conceal the food-for-oil scandal (until the embargo could be lifted in its entirety). And watch what they do with either Iran or North Korea; they will try to get a major power, preferably us, to bribe them, and they will do nothing. You can’t run a business this way; you can’t run a country this way; and, as I have frequently pointed out, you certainly can’t fight a war this way—not if you hope to have any chance of winning it.