House of Eratosthenes

Democrats and Waterboarding
The party will lose the presidential race if it defines itself as soft on terror.
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ

I recently had occasion to discuss the Bush administration’s war on terrorism with one of the highest ranking former officials responsible for planning that war. He asked me what I thought the administration’s biggest mistake was.

I told him that it was not immediately going bipartisan following the attacks of 9/11. President Roosevelt had invited Republicans to join his cabinet as the U.S. prepared to fight the Germans and the Japanese, and President Lincoln had included political opponents in his efforts to preserve the union. Creating a united political front against an external enemy may blunt the partisan advantage expected from a successful military effort, but it helps to keep the country together at a time when partisan bickering can undercut the effort. The former Bush official agreed, regretting that the war against terrorism had become essentially a Republican project.

Now the Democrats appear to be making the same mistake as they move toward what seems to be an inevitable retaking of the White House. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates are seeking partisan advantage from what many Americans see as the Bush failures in the war against terrorism and especially its extension to Iraq and possibly, in the future, to Iran.

This pacifistic stance appeals to the left wing of the democratic electorate, which may have some influence on the outcome of democratic primaries, but which is far less likely to determine the outcome of the general election. Most Americans–Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided–want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.

As I’ve stated repeatedly, there are two issues with next year’s election that are far more important than any other, and just about everybody understands this even though few will admit outwardly that it’s true. The second most important issue is close on the heels of the first. The top spot is occupied by: Which of the candidates, from either party, will bring us the biggest pile of crispy dead terrorists? If one administration would haul in 500 terrorist carcasses a month and the other one would bring in 499, there really isn’t any other factor that would justify letting that 1 terrorist continue walking around. He could very well be responsible for some real damage. This is a pestilence that has gone unexterminated for far too long, and we need to poison, burn, and stamp out all we can. We’ve already tried ignoring them. For a good long time. It didn’t work. Now we need to kill them off.

And the second most important issue, just behind the first, is internal. It, too, is a question left too long unaddressed: What do we get when we put liberal democrats in charge of things? Do we get someone simply ignorant of history, or do we get certifiably insane people? Is their connection to reality just strained, or has it snapped altogether?

What makes the second most important issue so close in importance to the first, is this overwhelming crush of people who call themselves “moderates.” They think when you put Republicans in half the time, and donks in the other half of the time, you’ve achieved moderation. That’s true, assuming one ideology is cleanly left and the other is cleanly right, and there’s some path of decency and righteousness halfway between them. And that’s a great way to go if you subscribe to the “highest point of a mountain is the center” theory, concluding that when those two halves are forced to work together, the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts.

The problem comes in when we review facts that do, or do not, support this. The problem is that we have no reason to believe in any of the theories of “moderation” above.

What we do have reason to believe, is that the people we call liberals and leftists are wombat-rabies bollywonkers insane. And I would hope it’s obvious — when you alternate between letting sane people and insane people run things, maybe, just maybe, that’s not the right way to go.

This ties in with Derschowitz’s closing uppercut, and it’s a killer:

Perhaps political campaigns and confirmation hearings are not the appropriate fora in which to conduct subtle and difficult debates about tragic choices that a president or attorney general may face. But nor are they the appropriate settings for hypocritical public posturing by political figures who, in private, would almost certainly opt for torture if they believed it was necessary to save numerous American lives. What is needed is a recognition that government officials must strike an appropriate balance between the security of America and the rights of our enemies.

Unless the Democratic Party–and particularly their eventual candidate for president–is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey because he refused to posture on a difficult issue relating to national security. They will win if they are seen as just as tough but a lot smarter on how to deal with real threats to our national interests.

And that’s why I see this as a ray of hope. In politics, Derschowitz’s points are all sound. But — I think I can almost guarantee that the donkey party will not, anytime soon, present themselves as “just as tough but a lot smarter on how to deal with real threats to our national interests.” Kerry tried it three years ago. Whenever it came time to address details, he waffled.

Because what Derschowitz can’t admit, or won’t, is that there is money coming in to support the donks. And that money comes from people who, for one reason or another, don’t want a War on Terror to be fought. It’s not all about votes, a lot of it has to do with sponsors.

There’s no real challenge involved in proving this to be true. Just look at the donks address the War on Terror sometime; just watch ’em. Blah blah blah Bush’s Fault War For Oil Illegal Unjust War blah blah blah…but meanwhile, the country does have a problem with international terrorism, and it doesn’t quite fill-the-bill to say we have a problem because of George W. Bush. The terrorists are out there. They pre-date the George W. Bush administration. They’ll get to us again if they can. What should we do about them? ………..SILENCE.

The donks are all too eager to pump out hatred at their political enemies. Why, if we could bottle up just a quarter of it and aim it at the terrorists, that might solve the problem right then & there. But what about the PROBLEM? What is to be DONE? All these years gone by, the donks have had nothing to say there. That’s the way people behave when they’re on the take. When they get money for doing a job, and the job is to distract. That is how people in general act when someone is giving them money under the table.

So yes, Prof. Derschowitz, if the donks start presenting a mantle of toughness — and filling in details about it better than John Kerry did, to show they’re serious about it — they might win. And if a frog had wings he might not have to bump his ass on the ground all the time. See, it won’t happen. The donks are as beholden to their donors as they are to their voters…as much as Republicans are beholden to their donors…probably even moreso. The strategy of the donks, whether the donks themselves like it or not, is to put a George Soros puppet in the White House.

And the rest of us should be very concerned about that, even if some of us want to call ourselves “moderates.” Because that would service the first-most-important issue very poorly. You could take the terrorists off the endangered-species list then.

Exactly. We saw this last time around with John Kerry. When asked about Iran he said he’d use diplomacy to “force” Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. No further details on how exactly that worked. He also said he’s achieve victory in Iraq by creating a “real coalition” not just a paper one to win. That “real coalition” would “fight smarter” and thereby win the war. No word on how that was done either. Once the desperation set in, he talked about his “secret plan” to win the GWOT. Still waiting for more information on that one.

The other issue that I’d put a #3 or even #2.1 is “How much money are they going to squeeze me for if I elect them?” Even democrats who are in favor of every federal program known to man get squeamish about paying for it on election day.
- Duffy | 11/07/2007 @ 15:55
I heard someone on the radio flat out say that we’ve only waterboarded 3 people in the WOT … and that that proves that it doesn’t work.

I say it proves that we only do this in very specific extreme cases and don’t take it lightly.

As a matter of fact, they named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as one of them and said that it did, in fact, work in that case (from Khalid’s own non-drowned mouth, later on). Who the other two were and whether or not it worked on them were not mentioned.

Yeah, it’s hypocritical. We all know darned well that given the right circumstances, any one of the candidates would approve it, but they’re conveniently using the fact that the Bush Administration apparently did approve it a few times in the year and a half after 9/11… to bash Bush.

It would’ve be fine if it were the Gore adminstration.
- philmon | 11/07/2007 @ 16:47
[…] the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback. ‹ Bradley Co. RV Voters Knocked Off Rolls Voting for Satan› […]
- The Second Most Important Issue III | Political news - democrats republicans socialists greens liberals conservatives | 11/07/2007 @ 21:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The Second Most Important Issue IIIWednesday, November 7th, 2007

The Second Most Important Issue III
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007