In the House debate, it was the calculation of Speaker Pelosi and her
leadership to keep the focus on the poll-proven unpopularity of the Iraq war and
the 21st century's most famous bogeyman, "George Bush." The GOP calculation was
to move the debate off Iraq and onto the broader war on terror.
Politics aside, the result on public view was a Democratic side that
looked small, mired in talk of American "failure," while a number of senior
Republicans--John Boehner, Pete Hoekstra, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, even Peter
King--produced almost stirring speeches on the substance and meaning of the
global threat.
Pete Hoekstra, recently chairman of the intelligence committee, gave
what must be the severest attack on radical Islam ever by a U.S. public figure.
Forget Pope Benedict; there was nary a genuflection to Muslim sensibilities in
Mr. Hoekstra's argument that the enemy is not some vague thing called terrorism:
"We are not at war with a tactic. We are at war with a group of militant
Islamists who hate us and who hate much of the rest of the world."
John Boehner reviewed each Islamic terrorist act directed at the U.S.
dating to the Iran hostage-taking of 1979. "Too bad it took so long to open our
eyes," he said, "but they are open now." Ileana Ros-Lehtinen quoted the famous
blueprint of al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri: "The first stage: expel the
Americans from Iraq." Rep. Charles Boustany said plausibly that other Arab
nations could never help with a political settlement if the region is engulfed
in violence after a U.S. exit.
So one may ask: Where were you guys when we needed you? Republicans
lost the election because most of them foxholed the past two years when the
going got tough. Instead of this Kissingerian geopolitical vision, they let one
guy carry the burden (they would reply that the "one guy" never asked for their
help).
Sens. Clinton and Obama should take a long look at Tuesday's videotape
of the Democratic House now shaping the party's foreign policy. Is this where
they'll want to be next year?
Even allowing for the politics of the Iraq-only script, it got a little
weird watching speaker after speaker (excepting freshman and former Navy admiral
Joe Sestak) pretend that the world and all its troubles can be telescoped down
to the Sunni Triangle. Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the foreign affairs
committee and nominally responsible for a larger view, simply wrote off Iraq's
government--"They have made minimal and cosmetic efforts"--and the entire Iraqi
people: "Iraqis themselves don't seem to want it."
The more difficult political problem, though, is still Vietnam. All the
while the Democratic members were withdrawing support for the U.S. commitment in
Iraq, they were at pains to inoculate themselves against their toxic experience
with Vietnam. So horrifying are the famous images in the 1970s of what
presumably were not evangelicals spitting on GIs coming home from Vietnam, that
House Democrats, with every second intake of breath, spoke of the troops and
their families ("their wonderful families"--Rep. Ike Skelton). History may view
this as progress.
Then there is the matter of the also-famous 1975 decision to withhold
appropriations for the war in Vietnam. Democrats insist they won't pull the plug
on the troops in Iraq, preferring what they call, with no apparent irony, a
"fully funded withdrawal." Still, several invoked the "power of the purse"
(Messrs. Conyers and McGovern), referring to next month's vote on an
appropriations supplemental. And Rep. Jim McDermott said he'd duplicate the 1971
Hatfield-McGovern amendment to bring the troops home.
Republicans who side with the Liberals on this should be ashamed of themselves. Especially so in that these republicans know what the Liberals are really up to. It ain't looking out for our troops nor our National security.
