Verdict first; trial afterwards

The Democrats are scurrying trying to squeeze some bad news out of Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to be working for them. They’ve painted themselves in a corner that they can’t escape. George Bush proved to the Democrats and to al Qaeda that he won’t back down from them, but the autopsy of the anti-democracy movement in the US has begun. In the December 3rd edition of The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery begins recounting quotes from last November in The Stab That Failed;

“Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed.” The surge was “a sad, ominous echo of something we’ve lived through in this country,” according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. “I’m confident it will not work,” said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama.

Having Kerry’s seal of disapproval, coupled with Barack Obama, was almost like adding another 20,000 troops on the field, I suppose. Neither has been right about anything in the whole time they’ve been in the Senate.

Gaius from Blue Crab Boulevard quotes the Financial Times’ Clive Crook calling the current Democrat situation a “trap”;

Opposition to the war has been [Democrats’] chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.

On cue, LauraW at Ace of Spades records the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum hand-wringing opinion piece about our stature in the world;

Though I don’t especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren’t improving in Iraq — it seems they are, at least for the moment — but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America’s relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn’t just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What’s worse is the fact that — however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now — our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we’ve paid is too high.

Probably not as high a price as we’ve paid for foreign policy failures like Somalia and Viet Nam, though. The reason we paid such a high price in Iraq is because everyone expected us to cut and run from Iraq like we’ve done nearly everywhere else in the last 60 years. the fact that there’s a peace conference scheduled in Annapolis with all of the major players would have been impossible last year at this time. President Bush has shown a determination to see the process in the Middle East continue – regardless of the chatter from the left…and the Right , by the way.

And our “image” in the world is just that – our cosmetic appearance. However, it’s clear that our “image” is backed by stalwart military power and a decisive, unwaivering commander (for the time being). From Curt at Flopping Aces;

Problem is, we have always been hated, and loved.  It was the same 50 years ago and will be the same 50 years in the future.  Some hate how successful we are.  Some hate Democracy.  Some hate our ideals.  You can count al-Qaeda in that group and the question is, should we care?

Crotchety Old Bastard writes that the Democrat candidates are cutting and running from the cut and run strategy;

This is not at all surprising to anyone with a brain.  Of course that eliminates almost all Democrats who constitute the most mindlessly uninformed voting block in history.  But they have decided to surrender from surrendering.  From no less than the New York Times:

That’s not leadership – that’s politics. The two major candidates for leader of the free world are sticking their finger in the air to determine what they think. COB sums up;

These people are so pathetic that it is beyond comprehension.  Having championed the cause of defeat while pandering to their leftist base, they now face the very real possibility that we (America) may actually win.  Win in spite of their treasonous undermining.

The Daily Kooks and so on will raise all kinds of hell and then vote for them anyway.  Why?  Because they have the same level of principles as their socialist candidates.

Don Surber writes what I’ve been saying all along – they refuse to compromise and still they don’t understand why Republicans want them to fail;

It is the line of the day from Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington Bureau. Writing about the inability of a Democratic Congress to do anything this year, Lochhead wrote: “Bewildered Democrats have concluded that Republicans simply want them to fail.”

Just like Democrats want our soldiers to fail in Iraq.

Unlike our soldiers, Congressional Democrats have poor leaders. Instead of legislating and compromising, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi bull forward.

At Western Hemisphere Policy Watch, the anonomous author detects leftist lip-licking among our allies’ diplomatic missions here in DC at the prospect of being able to once again fleece the American taxpayers when Democrats take over both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year;

The international left can barely contain itself. The prospects of a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House too good to pass up or wait for the election results to confirm the outcome in November 2008. WHPW Editors have yet to notice too much of this sentiment in and about town with the locals (i.e., Washingtonians), but the foreign diplomatic corp is buzzing even in Europe.

Take for example the following program being hosted by the leftist Chatham House in the U.K. (i.e., Royal Institute for International Affairs, uncle of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York City) next month: America and Europe: From 9/11 to the 2008 Presidential Election with Guest Speaker James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Chief Spokesman for the State Department and senior policy adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (1997-2000). The program is described thusly:

The speaker will reflect on European attitudes towards American foreign policy, the loss of American prestige in recent years, the role of foreign policy in the 2008 elections, and what a Democratic foreign policy would mean for the transatlantic partnership.

And, in the meantime, since they can’t attack the war, they can’t attack the troops, they have no effect on our foreign policy so they still pursue impeachment of the policy maker, according to Michele Malkin;

Democrat leaders might have thought they put the impeachment circus to rest on November 6. But as I noted, the nutroots are gearing up for a stage production of a Beltway impeachment play that’ll open after New Year’s–and over this Thanksgiving holiday, Denny K’s peeps have been pounding the I-drum and hounding Democrats over their reluctance to go with the impeachment flow.

I guess they don’t figure that this little drama doesn’t hurt our “image” in the world a bit – or they don’t care.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Foreign Policy, Politics, Terror War