Politicizing the war
By James Ruhland
web posted April 12, 2004
When it comes to politics and the war, it doesn't take much to
get Democrats and their supporters in the media to cry "foul."
We've heard frequent charges over the last two and a half years
that the Republicans are "politicizing the war" or "questioning our
patriotism" and "chilling debate." Rarely are these charges
grounded in reality, because the truth is that the Democrats have
done the most to politicize the war. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-
MA) claims the war was cooked up in Texas for political gain.
But it is Kennedy and other proxies of the Kerry campaign who
are trying to use the war for their political gain, and it is they who
are questioning the patriotism of their opponents.
Last Monday, Sen. Kennedy called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam" and a
"quagmire." On Wednesday Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), during an
interview on NPR, called al Sadr, the radical cleric inciting
violence against American and allied troops in Iraq, a "legitimate
voice" and placed blame on us for closing his newspaper. While
in reality al Sadr's supporters initiated the violence, Kerry
asserted that we were "making war against the Iraqi people".
This is far from the reality of the situation, and ignores the fact that al
Sadr does not have widespread support among Iraq's Shi'ites.
But it is unlikely Kerry will come in for the kind of criticism a
Republican would have for making similar reckless and
inaccurate assertions during the Clinton Administration.
It gets worse from there. The Democrats nakedly hope to use
the 9/11 commission for political gain. On March 28th Donald
Lambro reported in the Washington Times that the Democrats
saw the 9/11 commission in political terms, as helping them and
hurting Bush. The Chairman of the California Democratic Party,
Bob Mulholland, was quoted saying that "the report will be a
perfect introduction to the Democratic convention on July 26,"
and that the Commission will be a political bonanza for
Democrats and Kerry's Presidential campaign. We don't have to
imagine what the reaction would be if a prominent Republican
Party official said 9/11 will be a political bonanza for Bush. But
Mulholland's remarks were virtually ignored by the watchdogs of
the press, who continue to pretend that the Democrats' insistence
that Condi Rice testify in public before the commission has
nothing to do with partisan politics.
To a greater extent than ever before, the press has chosen sides
in a political campaign. Yes, they always had their biases but
now they are applying clearly different standards of political
decorum to the two parties, in ways that are manifestly intended
to shape the terms of the debate in the Democrat's favor. They
are engaged in politicizing the war in the same way the
Democrats are. Their reports often uncritically repeat
Democratic talking points.
A more accurate analysis would point out that the Democrats are
attempting to fan people's fears and that they are playing footsie
with the conspiracy-minded Left rather than offering serious
criticisms and realistic policy alternatives. Take the oft-repeated
claim that we should internationalize Iraq in the fashion that was
done in Afghanistan and Kosovo, coupled with the implication
that this would solve the security problems in Iraq and that the
Bush Administration is solely responsible for the fact that
countries like France are not on board. This ignores the fact that
in Kosovo, the model they insist we should follow has hardly
produced peace. A wave of ethnic cleansing and violence
wracked the region again a few weeks ago. This was under-
reported because it cuts against the conventional wisdom and
might cause people to question Democratic assertions on Iraq.
With respect to Afghanistan, the fact is that our coalition partners
in Iraq are providing more than the world has provided for
Afghanistan. There the involvement of the UN and the
international community has, as in Kosovo, failed to produce the
results that Democrats claim it will in Iraq.
But whenever counter-arguments are made to Democratic
criticisms of the handling of the war, they and their supporters in
the press complain that it is an effort to chill political debate. This
is a farcical assertion to make, because raising counter-
arguments to their critiques is an example of political debate at
work. It is declaring such arguments out of bounds that is an
effort to quash civic discourse by rendering the arguments of one
side, the Right, illegitimate without having to rebut them on the
merits.
This is done for the simple reason that if their arguments were
looked at objectively it would be seen that the majority of
Democratic criticisms of our war policies are serious only in
seeking political advantage at home. They are not serious
alternative strategies for victory in the war and indeed it's unlikely
that most who are making them really believe them to be. Bush's
policies are not above criticism and serious alternatives worthy of
consideration may exist. But this simply highlights the fact that
Left in this country prefers demagogy in pursuit of short-term
political advantage to a more sober and reasoned critique
because that isn't their mindset. More to the point it would not
keep the hatreds of their base inflamed in the way that their ad
hominem attacks and baseless charges do. A democratic nation
benefits from a healthy political debate, but the Democratic
Party's efforts to politicize the war and generate hysteria for
political advantage shows that such a debate is not what they are
interested in engaging in. The mainstream press lets them off the
hook in these antics because they identify with their cause
themselves, but a clear-eyed electorate will not take such
rhetoric seriously.
James Ruhland lives in Colorado and writes www.porphyrogenitus.net
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com