Democrat turnaround on Iraq?
I have lost count of the conservative or pro-WoT blogs featuring posts about various Democrats being "forced" to acknowledge that we can't pull out of Iraq any time soon or that the surge is working
. These pro-WoT bloggers seem to think that such admissions are being forced from unwilling Democrats who can no longer ignore the facts.
I have my doubts. It is hard to imagine that the facts at this point are so overwhelming that the party that claims that Iraq was at one time an American client state under Saddam or that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, or that George Bush lied when he said that intelligence sources thought that Saddam was still interested in nuclear weapons, or that the US lost militarily in Vietnam, or that the Russians were never a genuine threat, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that ... well, you get the point. It's hard to believe that such a group of people would be bludgeoned into submission by the still-ambiguous situation in Iraq.
What is really going on is something that Republicans don't see because they don't share the assumptions of Democrats. How many times have Democrats claimed that Bush lied us into war because it helped him politically? Republicans, I believe, just ignore this rhetoric because they view it as obviously silly. Intuitively it doesn't make any sense to most Republicans that just being in a war would get you political support, and clearly the war has not helped Bush much, so it's just a silly idea. The Democrats are apparently just flailing around and throwing random, incoherent accusations at Bush.
But I don't think this statement should be dismissed so quickly. After all, why would they make the accusation if they didn't think that it has some force? And why would they think the accusation has some force unless they actually believed it? That is what this means: Democrats, by and large, believe that it is politically beneficial for a president to be in a war.
This is particularly true of the Clintons. Bill Clinton obviously believes that war is good for the president because he had a habit of starting wars or bombing aspirin factories whenever he was in political trouble. And if Bill believed it, then Hillary probably believes it. And since the Clintons expect to take back the White House in the next election, they would like to have a war still going on for them to take advantage of.
On the bright side, if I'm right then maybe having a Democrat president would actually be good for the country in one way, that it would finally unify the country around our need for self defense.
A campaign ad by friends (?) of Fred Thompson
I don't think Fred's campaign committee is going to (publicly) embrace this
the world's most toxic value system
I got this link from a comment on Maverick Philosopher
: an essay on The World's Most Toxic Value System
by Steven Dutch, a geology professor at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
It's surprising to see something this non-PC coming from a university professor. And it's depressing that it's surprising.