On the Huffington Post blog Donnie Fowler gives advice to his fellow Democrats on how to address Iraq. Basically he says they should lie:
But as for the rest, Fowler is advocating a policy of mendacity. The fact is, under the Bush Administration spending on education, medicare and transportation has all gone up (which I am not particuarly pleased about either). Jobs have increased (which, you know, is a duty that belongs to the private sector anyhow, not government).
The last part, however, is perhaps the most illuminating. Contrary to what Fowler and many other Democrats believe, the Iraq War is both a defensive and humanitarian enterprise. The humanitarian aspect is obvious. As for why it's defensive, you can calm down, I already know Iraq isn't responsible for Sept. 11. It's defensive because ultimately it's not about Iraq, it's about the entire Middle East -- a region whose citizens have been at war with the U.S. for decades. Draining the Middle East swamp is the best way to ensure that a replay of 9/11 and other terror attacks does not occur.
Fowler's inability to see at least the humanitarian aspect to Iraq, if not the defensive one, is mind-boggling. Maybe, like John Kerry, he believes that U.S. soldiers are merely traipsing around terrorizing Iraqi civilians. But hey, I bet he supports the troops!
In his eyes the U.S. military should only be used after we've been kicked in the crotch, and -- I suspect -- preferably only on missions such as handing out food to people in third world countries. Basically it should be like the Peace Corps, but with guns.
Does anyone wonder why these people keep losing elections?
What to do, then? When Democrats talk about the war and Republican failures, they must talk about how it is making our country weaker -- international standing, no money to invest in education & health care & infrastructure & jobs -- not how the war was immoral or the deaths were useless. Let me be clear. This does NOT mean that the Democrats now need to become more pro-war than the White House. Democrats must talk about how they can return the country to a position of strength. We can be more responsible about deploying our military, using the services for defensive actions but also for humanitarian purposes.On international standing I guess he has a case. All the weenie countries of the world -- Belgium, Canada, Austria, etc. -- have united in opposition against us. But that's cool because I don't really see foreign policy as an international popularity contest. To me it has to do with whether you are right or wrong, and as long as we're on the right side I don't really care what anyone else thinks.
But as for the rest, Fowler is advocating a policy of mendacity. The fact is, under the Bush Administration spending on education, medicare and transportation has all gone up (which I am not particuarly pleased about either). Jobs have increased (which, you know, is a duty that belongs to the private sector anyhow, not government).
The last part, however, is perhaps the most illuminating. Contrary to what Fowler and many other Democrats believe, the Iraq War is both a defensive and humanitarian enterprise. The humanitarian aspect is obvious. As for why it's defensive, you can calm down, I already know Iraq isn't responsible for Sept. 11. It's defensive because ultimately it's not about Iraq, it's about the entire Middle East -- a region whose citizens have been at war with the U.S. for decades. Draining the Middle East swamp is the best way to ensure that a replay of 9/11 and other terror attacks does not occur.
Fowler's inability to see at least the humanitarian aspect to Iraq, if not the defensive one, is mind-boggling. Maybe, like John Kerry, he believes that U.S. soldiers are merely traipsing around terrorizing Iraqi civilians. But hey, I bet he supports the troops!
In his eyes the U.S. military should only be used after we've been kicked in the crotch, and -- I suspect -- preferably only on missions such as handing out food to people in third world countries. Basically it should be like the Peace Corps, but with guns.
Does anyone wonder why these people keep losing elections?
No comments:
Post a Comment