The Diplomacy Only Party
This past Saturday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.),
wrote
This cuts to the heart of the Democratic Party's base. I wouldn't be the least bit confident that this Democratic Party would fight WWII. If Iraq is their template, they'd attack Japan but they wouldn't think about fighting Germany.
Let's get back to Feinstein's declaration about "the failed doctrine of preemption..." Sen. Feinstein, specifically how has "the Bush Doctrine of preemption" failed? Don't give me platitudes and whining. Give me specifics. Has that doctrine of preemption led to further 9/11's? Has it left us less secure than we thought we were on 9/10? If you think it has, why do you think that? Again, be specific on why.
Also, please explain how our preemptive war in Iraq hasn't positively changed the political landscape in the Middle East. Also cite for me all the times that the 'diplomacy only' approach worked. Cite specifics of how that approach helped Carter or Clinton.
Compare that with how swiftly Ayatollah Khomeini relinquished the Tehran hostages when he thought Reagan would turn Iran into a sandy parking lot. Or how scared Moammar Qaddaffi was when we took preemptive action in Iraq. Iran and Libya changed their ways in a heartbeat when faced with those threats. Meanwhile, our 'diplomacy only' approach to today's Iran has led to their enriching uranium.
Let's also not forget how Democrats think of the inevitability of future terrorist attacks while President Bush has done everything possible to prevent future attacks. During the 2004 election, their "better way" of handling terrorist attacks was to have more first responders to clean up the inevitable messes.
That's one of the most asinine policies I've ever seen. It's worthless from a national security standpoint because it means that thousands of innocent Americans will needlessly die. It's stupid from an economic standpoint because trillions of dollars will vanish from our economy. It's horrible from a Constitutional standpoint because the Executive Branch is mandated to "protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The 'diplomacy only' approach guarantees that we go out with a whimper.
As Billy Jack said ages ago, "If I see that there's no way to avoid a fight, then I want to be damn sure that I land the first punch." That's summarizes the Bush Doctrine's policy of pre-emption to a T.
If you want a party that won't do everything in its power to prevent 'inevitable' terrorist attacks, vote Democrat. If you want a party that'll do everything to protect us from future terrorist attacks, your only option is the GOP.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:59 PM
No comments.
"The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?" She later said "the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned."This is just further proof that the current Democratic Party is the "Diplomacy Only Party", which is only slightly different than the "Anti-war Party" of Cindy Sheehan. The difference isn't philosophy. The difference is that the "Diplomacy Only Party" are either elected officials or they're future Democratic administration wannabe's maintaining "political viability" while the "Anti-War Party" aren't worried about "political viability."
This cuts to the heart of the Democratic Party's base. I wouldn't be the least bit confident that this Democratic Party would fight WWII. If Iraq is their template, they'd attack Japan but they wouldn't think about fighting Germany.
Let's get back to Feinstein's declaration about "the failed doctrine of preemption..." Sen. Feinstein, specifically how has "the Bush Doctrine of preemption" failed? Don't give me platitudes and whining. Give me specifics. Has that doctrine of preemption led to further 9/11's? Has it left us less secure than we thought we were on 9/10? If you think it has, why do you think that? Again, be specific on why.
Also, please explain how our preemptive war in Iraq hasn't positively changed the political landscape in the Middle East. Also cite for me all the times that the 'diplomacy only' approach worked. Cite specifics of how that approach helped Carter or Clinton.
Compare that with how swiftly Ayatollah Khomeini relinquished the Tehran hostages when he thought Reagan would turn Iran into a sandy parking lot. Or how scared Moammar Qaddaffi was when we took preemptive action in Iraq. Iran and Libya changed their ways in a heartbeat when faced with those threats. Meanwhile, our 'diplomacy only' approach to today's Iran has led to their enriching uranium.
Let's also not forget how Democrats think of the inevitability of future terrorist attacks while President Bush has done everything possible to prevent future attacks. During the 2004 election, their "better way" of handling terrorist attacks was to have more first responders to clean up the inevitable messes.
That's one of the most asinine policies I've ever seen. It's worthless from a national security standpoint because it means that thousands of innocent Americans will needlessly die. It's stupid from an economic standpoint because trillions of dollars will vanish from our economy. It's horrible from a Constitutional standpoint because the Executive Branch is mandated to "protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The 'diplomacy only' approach guarantees that we go out with a whimper.
As Billy Jack said ages ago, "If I see that there's no way to avoid a fight, then I want to be damn sure that I land the first punch." That's summarizes the Bush Doctrine's policy of pre-emption to a T.
If you want a party that won't do everything in its power to prevent 'inevitable' terrorist attacks, vote Democrat. If you want a party that'll do everything to protect us from future terrorist attacks, your only option is the GOP.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:59 PM
No comments.
