Isaiah Z. Sterrett
Fractures Democrats
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett
I guess it was only a matter of time before John Kerry and Howard Dean, once rivals for their party's nomination, competed once more. This week, in total contradistinction to the salubrious words of Joe Lieberman, Kerry and Dean decided it would be fun to find out who could make the more offensive, absurd, mendacious statement. They tied.
Kerry, presumably a man with at least a vague sense of public opinion, argued on "Face the Nation" that that "there is no reason...that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs....Iraqis should be doing that."
Media Matters For America, a liberal organization, claims that Kerry's comments are justified. They cite, in his defense, a May 10, 2004 AP article which reads, in part, "[t]reatment [of arrested Iraqis often] included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles." This may be true, but it does not mesh with Kerry's description. Certainly "insulting" does not amount to anything nearly as egregious as "terrorizing," and surely "taking aim with rifles" — as opposed to shooting a rifle — doesn't, either.
Moreover, given that we are currently engaged in the "War on Terror," to use any derivation of the word "terror" to describe American troops, a constituency Kerry claims to represent, is unwise, insensitive, and wrong.
As if Kerry wasn't already working feverishly to destroy the legitimacy of the Iraq war, Chairman Dean has been very outspoken recently, noting that the war is basically the same as Vietnam and, amazingly, very similar to Watergate, too. ("What we see today is very much like what was going on in Watergate. It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.")
Dean said very plainly that the situation in Iraq is "the same situation we had in Vietnam." This is like saying that the situation with Michael Jackson's molestation trial was "the same situation we had with the Rosenbergs."
Dean also said that it's "wrong" to believe that we can win the war, which is precisely what liberals said about the Cold War — right before Republican Ronald Reagan used the might of the American economy to crush the Soviet Empire. Dean's assertion is not merely a flawed opinion; it is an ignorant, vacuous analysis rooted in domestic political goals — not concern for the future of American foreign policy.
Another Democrat who's recently made unpopular remarks is Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. But whereas Dean's and Kerry's comments were unpopular among Americans, Lieberman's comments were unpopular among members of his party. By contrast, the one-time running-mate of Al Gore is now adored among, of all people, conservative Republicans. Neither the GOP nor Lieberman could have predicted such a turn of events.
Regardless of how one feels about Iraq, Lieberman is factually correct in arguing, as he did, that Democrats have no choice but to work with President George Bush. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," he said.
Due largely to these remarks, many are now speculating, maybe prematurely, that Sen. Lieberman will replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld upon Rumsfeld's retirement, expected next year. Though much can change in a year, at this juncture, such a decision seems very likely and very acceptable — to all. John Kerry said on "Face the Nation" that he would support Lieberman for SecDef.
We have, on the one hand, a party collapsing on its own sword. Dean and Kerry have made absurd, even frightening, comments, and they've done so without regard to the troops or the war in which they fight. But Lieberman, part of this same party and a Senator from a fairly liberal state, has come out in utter opposition to them, making precisely the opposite arguments. The future of the Democratic Party will be determined by the ideology most able to survive public sentiment.
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
I guess it was only a matter of time before John Kerry and Howard Dean, once rivals for their party's nomination, competed once more. This week, in total contradistinction to the salubrious words of Joe Lieberman, Kerry and Dean decided it would be fun to find out who could make the more offensive, absurd, mendacious statement. They tied.
Kerry, presumably a man with at least a vague sense of public opinion, argued on "Face the Nation" that that "there is no reason...that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs....Iraqis should be doing that."
Media Matters For America, a liberal organization, claims that Kerry's comments are justified. They cite, in his defense, a May 10, 2004 AP article which reads, in part, "[t]reatment [of arrested Iraqis often] included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles." This may be true, but it does not mesh with Kerry's description. Certainly "insulting" does not amount to anything nearly as egregious as "terrorizing," and surely "taking aim with rifles" — as opposed to shooting a rifle — doesn't, either.
Moreover, given that we are currently engaged in the "War on Terror," to use any derivation of the word "terror" to describe American troops, a constituency Kerry claims to represent, is unwise, insensitive, and wrong.
As if Kerry wasn't already working feverishly to destroy the legitimacy of the Iraq war, Chairman Dean has been very outspoken recently, noting that the war is basically the same as Vietnam and, amazingly, very similar to Watergate, too. ("What we see today is very much like what was going on in Watergate. It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.")
Dean said very plainly that the situation in Iraq is "the same situation we had in Vietnam." This is like saying that the situation with Michael Jackson's molestation trial was "the same situation we had with the Rosenbergs."
Dean also said that it's "wrong" to believe that we can win the war, which is precisely what liberals said about the Cold War — right before Republican Ronald Reagan used the might of the American economy to crush the Soviet Empire. Dean's assertion is not merely a flawed opinion; it is an ignorant, vacuous analysis rooted in domestic political goals — not concern for the future of American foreign policy.
Another Democrat who's recently made unpopular remarks is Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. But whereas Dean's and Kerry's comments were unpopular among Americans, Lieberman's comments were unpopular among members of his party. By contrast, the one-time running-mate of Al Gore is now adored among, of all people, conservative Republicans. Neither the GOP nor Lieberman could have predicted such a turn of events.
Regardless of how one feels about Iraq, Lieberman is factually correct in arguing, as he did, that Democrats have no choice but to work with President George Bush. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," he said.
Due largely to these remarks, many are now speculating, maybe prematurely, that Sen. Lieberman will replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld upon Rumsfeld's retirement, expected next year. Though much can change in a year, at this juncture, such a decision seems very likely and very acceptable — to all. John Kerry said on "Face the Nation" that he would support Lieberman for SecDef.
We have, on the one hand, a party collapsing on its own sword. Dean and Kerry have made absurd, even frightening, comments, and they've done so without regard to the troops or the war in which they fight. But Lieberman, part of this same party and a Senator from a fairly liberal state, has come out in utter opposition to them, making precisely the opposite arguments. The future of the Democratic Party will be determined by the ideology most able to survive public sentiment.
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
