bRight & Early

Jim Lynch August 31st, 2006 10:47 am

I have wanted to comment on Donald Rumsfeld’s speech to the American Legion Convention since I first read Beth’s post at Blue Star Chronicles. Ernesto blogging shifted my focus away from this story and I thought perhaps it was a bit of old news. But the Leftocrats and TOM™ still have their panties in a wad so another look, even one a few days late, can’t hurt.

Wednesday’s AP article, headlined Democrats take fire at Rumsfeld, details some of the reaction from the left:

“It is a dangerous business to accuse those who disagree with you of moral and intellectual confusion,” said Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. “Debate in our democracy is based upon respect, not vilification.”

[...]

Said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: “If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in
Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe.”

[...]

Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said Rumsfeld has been “substituting sloganing for strategy” and delivered a “calculated political argument” to make people believe that to support a war against terror requires support of the administration’s policies.

“I think the analogy is very, very weak,” Reed, D-R.I., said of Rumsfeld’s comparison of Iraq to World War II.

[...]

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York called Rumsfeld’s portrayal of Democrats a “strawman” and said Americans need answers on how to deal with a looming civil war in Iraq.

I agree with Beth’s analysis in the post linked above:

His speech reinforced some thoughts that have been taking form in my mind about the refusal of America to accept how lethal this enemy is. And to not hear what is being repeatedly declared to us by the enemy. And the fact that the progressives of this country insist on dividing people into categories, democrats or republicans, rather than seeing us all as Americans who have everything at stake in this Global War on Terrorism. By doing this, they are undermining the military, the administration and ultimately the United States of America. It’s time to decide which side you are on and than solely focusing on what you have to do to win an election and gain power.

Sister Toldjah highlights the real motivation behind the defeatocrats “outrage”.

The main reason, of course, that Democrats are bristling at Rummy’s speech is because he’s helped bring back to the forefront an issue they are known to be weak on: the war on terror. Hammering home that we are still at war and have a clearly defined enemy reminds people of how weak Democrats are on national security issues and how much stronger the President – and Republicans – have been on national security since 9-11.

Finally, Chad Evans (In The Bullpen) gets to the core of the issue.

It is a failure of too many, and even one is too many, to see how the Islamist front is attacking not just this nation but all nations not raising the flag of Sharia that gets me everytime. It’s not, as Reid put it, that “Rumsfeld doesn’t get it,” it’s that too many people want to divide different wars and battles from the larger war on radical Islamic terrorism. Yes, it’s convenient to do and it makes for great political gain, but it’s incredibly wrong.

Incredibly. Wrong.

Cross-posted at Iowa Voice

• Conservative Politics , Iraq , Politics , Radical Islam , Surrender Monkeys , The Left , War on Terrorism
• Comments Off

Add your blog to the Blogiversary Database

149 views