Tube City Almanac

August 10, 2006

In a Hole, And Digging Myself Deeper

Category: default || By jt3y

(UPDATE: Make sure to read the latest version of this Almanac, updated at 7:30 p.m. Thursday.)


I don't really like to write about politics, because there are many, many other people doing that, and doing it well.

Also, my politics are as muddied as the bottom of the Youghiogheny River after three days of rain --- as I've pointed out here before, I'm a pro-labor practicing Catholic strong defense civil libertarian limited regulation environmentalist.

Tomorrow, I'll be off this topic, so you're welcome to skip out now.

But today, in light of the responses to yesterday's Almanac, I just want to throw this out to the crowd, and make sure I understand.

If someone is a liberal or a civil libertarian or is in some other way not a "real" conservative, but calls himself or herself a Republican, then they're not really a Republican, and it's OK for real Republicans and TV and newspaper commentators to toss every sort of calumny and slander at them (see also Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, Paul O'Neill, Christie Todd Whitman, etc.).

But if someone is a conservative, and calls himself a Democrat, then Democrats should shut up and vote for that person. (John Scalzi said it better yesterday over at Whatever ... and a Tube City hard-hat tip to Nancy Nall.)

So, in summary: If Democrats insist on voting for Democrats, then they should at least have the decency to only vote for Democrats who act like conservative Republicans.

Now I understand. Let's sing along with Garrison Keillor:

We're all Republicans now

We're all united and how

For national security

And cultural purity

We're all Republicans now

Down with the income tax

Get government off our backs

Less regulation—let people be free

To work overtime and have two jobs or three

Put strict constructionists back on the courts

Let liberals have it right in the shorts

It's a free country so go and have fun

But not in my backyard cause I have a gun

We're all Republicans

All Republicans

All Republicans now.


By the way: According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Gov. Rendell has now come out with a solid endorsement of Bob Casey Jr. for the U.S. Senate. One state Democratic committeeman says that Rendell's praise of Rick Santorum was "a huge, huge, huge mistake."

Yes. Exactly. Pepsi doesn't issue endorsements praising Coke; General Motors doesn't encourage people to buy Toyotas; NBC doesn't recommend that viewers switch to CBS; and Republicans don't endorse Democrats.

So why should Democrats feel it necessary --- in the spirit of "bipartisanship" --- to cozy up to Republicans during an election year? Ridiculous.

I promise, no more politics for a while. Local silly stuff on Friday. See you then.

UPDATED



7:30 p.m.:

In light of the news breaking today around the world, I thought it was necessary to shoot my mouth off again, just to clarify a few points:

  • It is possible to believe that Islamic fascism must be stopped, but that the current administration is not demonstrating the ability to stop it.


  • It is possible to think that the democratic (small "d") nations of the world are in a fight for survival against radicals intent on destroying us; but also believe that giving up our own civil liberties --- spying on Americans without cause, imprisoning people without trials--- is foolish and wrong.


  • It is possible to recognize that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the United States and the Middle East, but also think that the president's political appointees have made a mess of the war in Iraq, causing more instability in the region --- thus making the threat worse.


I felt it necessary to add these clarifications because of the things that Senators Lieberman and Santorum were saying today.

. . .

Lieberman told the New York Times that if U.S. troops leave Iraq, "it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

In other words, a vote for his opponent is a vote for more terrorism.

Meanwhile, Santorum told the Post-Gazette that Lieberman's loss in Tuesday's Democratic primary means that the terrorists "are winning."

This is shameful. It borders on propaganda of a type unseen since World War II --- and I don't mean the propaganda produced by our side.

I know enough hard-core "leftists" to know what some of them believe. Some of them believe there is no such thing as a "just war." Some of have sympathy for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.

Those people are, to use the medical term, "crazier than outhouse rats."

. . .

Terrorists are not "freedom fighters" or "insurgents," they are cold-blooded murderers. Hezbollah uses children to create human shields around military installations. Al Qaeda kills innocents indiscriminately.

Islamic fascism in general wants to abolish democratically-elected governments and impose theocratic dictatorships. There is nothing honorable about these methods or these causes.

Clearly a war to stop terrorism is just. And clearly we must fight one. (Penn State professor Michael Berube has just written a very sharp and scholarly analysis of this very fallacy. It's long, but worth reading.)

But lumping John Murtha, Ned Lamont or even Teddy Kennedy (a man I find fairly despicable) in with the far-left cuckoos is at best misleading, and is at worst lying.

In fact, arguing that a vote against Joe Lieberman or anyone else is some how a vote in favor of terrorism borders on mental illness. It's delusional.

  • I believe the United States has to protect itself against all threats.


  • I also believe that it has to behave as an honest broker, whether dealing with the Iraqis, the Lebanese or the Israelis, or with the Canadians, for that matter.


  • We are not investing the resources needed to secure Iraq (nevermind the fact that most Iraqis want us to leave) because the White House and Congress don't want to take the political risks that would entail --- namely tax hikes and a draft.


    • Instead, as many, many people have said, the White House is trying to fight a war on the cheap. Lack of equipment and sufficient personnel is getting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines killed.

    It's also allowing Iraq to slip into civil war. And as Iraq slips into civil war, more and more Iraqis turn against us every single day.

  • Because we're still not addressing the root causes of Islamic terrorism --- such as support of Islamic radicals by the ruling families of Saudi Arabia --- we're not effectively fighting it.


  • I don't think that the White House and many of the Republicans in Congress are being honest with our allies or our citizens about any of this. Instead, they hide behind slogans and toss epithets at their political opponents to score polling points and win elections.


In my mind, this all demands a change in leadership.

. . .

None of this excuses Democrats from coming up with a valid plan for national defense. Nor does it mean that Americans should support any Democrat blindly.

But I am disgusted with political rhetoric that implies that only Republicans and conservatives care about the safety of the United States --- and that only they can protect us.

Or with rhetoric that suggests that anyone who questions the conduct of the war on terrorism is somehow "unpatriotic." It smacks of totalitarianism and one-party rule.

For that matter, history doesn't bear it out: Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy seemed to handle the defense of the United States just fine.

And don't give me the malarkey that today's Democrats are some how "more liberal" than they were. More liberal than F.D.R.? Please.

I thank God that British authorities were able to bust a terror ring. I hope they and U.S. authorities keep stopping the bad guys here and abroad. Our very existence depends on it.

But today's events change my opinions not one wit.

They do, however, make the fevered bleatings of Senators Lieberman and Santorum seem even more shameful.






Your Comments are Welcome!

Have you talked to anyone who has been in Iraq?? I have talked to a good friend of mine who is Sgt in the Marines. He tells me that most of the Iraqi people welcome & thank the American troops for being there. So where are you getting your info that most Iraqis don’t want us there? THey people there feel that they cannot do it alone & want to be a free country. They are grateful that we are there. Why is it that we don’t here stories like this in the news? I agee with you that Bush is trying to fight the war on the cheap, but it is better than doing nothing & pulling out. John Kerry had said that we wouldn’t be in Iraq if he were president. Is that the general Democratic stance? Do nothing & it will go away? Let the terrorists stike whenever they want & we won’t do anything? I’m not disagreeing with all that you say, but you seem to want to lump things into a Democrat vs Republican thing. That’s not right either. They are good & bad politicians on both sides. It is a shame that people look at things not by what people do, but what a group they belong to says!!! Each politician should be judged on their actions, not what they say they are going to do & certianly not on just ONE issue.
Paul - August 11, 2006



Paul, I agree with a lot of what you say, too, and your comments are very thoughtful. You’re right that I am boiling this down into Democratic vs. Republican, which is not altogether helpful.

Conflating all types of Islamic terrorism into one big smear is not helpful, either, and it’s exactly what’s got us into trouble in the Middle East right now.

Cripes, we’ve got a president who invaded a Muslim country without being able to tell the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis!
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

Different groups of people are working different angles —- what Hezbollah wants is not necessarily what the Wahabbists want or what secular Muslims want —- and until we understand that, we are doomed.

As for the Iraqis wanting us there —- I don’t doubt your friend’s experiences. Of course many individual Iraqis want us there. The Iraqi police force is corrupt and roving gangs control much of the country.

But whose fault is it that the Iraqis still don’t have a functioning national police force or army? Ours. Don Rumsfeld’s. George Bush’s.

It’s time for us to either defecate, or get off the pot. If we’re not going to do the job right, then let’s get out. Personally, I’d like to see it completed correctly —- if it’s not too late.

My point, I guess, is that all of our branches of government right now are controlled by the same party, and no one in that party seems to be willing to dissent from the official policy being laid down by the White House —- largely for political reasons, not strategic reasons.

If those elected officials won’t change their strategy, maybe we just have to change the elected officials.

Last, but definitely NOT least: God bless your friend for doing a difficult job at a difficult time. He and his comrades deserve every bit of support we can give them —- I think the USO (www.uso.org) is a good place to start. Every dime we’re spending on ribbons and flag decals is better donated there.

In fact, I think I’m going to add a link to the USO today to the main Almanac page.
Webmaster (URL) - August 11, 2006



That flaming liberal George Will made a pretty cogent observation some months back in regard to the Iraqi insurgency:

History has demonstrated that a well-armed minority can wreak horrible destruction and seize control of nations much larger than Iraq. I don’t doubt that most Iraqis are glad we are there. Unfortunately, they are not the ones with all the guns.

The insurgency, as it makes life more and more unpleasant for Iraqis, will no doubt earn many enemies among the Iraqi people but will also earn admirers who see it undermining the military occupation of the strongest nation on Earth.

This is all the more lamentable for the fact that the administration apparently failed to take into account any real resi stance, and failed to alter its thinking once the insurgency took hold.
Jonathan Potts (URL) - August 14, 2006



To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.