The Rebirth of Neville Chamberlain: The Democratic Party
The Democrats are so used to rewriting history. It is truly amazing how they can play both sides of the fence so easily when it comes to bashing the President. In the aftermath of the report by the Iraq Study Group, the Dems are out in force saying the report was what they were saying all along.
Democrats on Wednesday praised a bipartisan report on Iraq as a step forward, with key senators calling it a rebuke of White House policy.
The newly released report says the United States must change its Iraq strategy to tackle a “grave and deteriorating” situation there that could lead to chaos.
Sen. Carl Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took a jab at the White House.
“The report represents another blow at the policy of ’stay-the-course’ that this administration has followed,” the Michigan Democrat said. “Hopefully, this will be the end of that stay-the-course policy.”
Levin, referring to Democrats’ election victory in November said, “the American people rose up against staying the course in Iraq, because it was not working.”
In the run-up to the mid-term election, the Democrats called for the US to pull out of Iraq or to re-deploy all of which means only one thing: cut-and-run. How Carl Levin can say that a document, which is pushing for the US to stay in Iraq, could possibly be the same as their position of running away? The differences between the two positions could not be starker. The Bush administration called for the US to win (this is a word the Democrats should look up in the dictionary) in Iraq, the Democrats called for the US to leave. The Iraq Study Group has also called for the US to stay in Iraq. Not quite the same thing.
Then Levin made this incredibly idiotic comment.
“Only a political settlement by the Iraqis can end the violence in Iraq, and the military force that we have there cannot do that for the Iraqis,” said Levin, who spoke after a briefing on the report by its co-chairmen.
Levin was not alone in advocating a negotiated or ‘political settlement.
Democrat Sen. Joseph Biden, who said that although he didn’t disagree with anything in it, he has “concerns about what may not be in the report relating to urging the Iraqis to have a political settlement.”
Today is December 7, the anniversary of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder if President Roosevelt thought about a political settlement with Japan afterwards. There was not a chance he would have entertained such an outrageous thought. If the Roosevelt had advocated ‘a negotiated settlement,’ many in Congress would have called for his impeachment.
There was a time when the Democrats wanted and understood winning. President Wilson did not want a negotiated settlement in WWI. President Roosevelt did not want a negotiated settlement during WWII. But there was a world leader who lauded his efforts at negotiating with Adolph Hitler before the start of World War II and that was Neville Chamberlain. His position is much like those of in the Democratic Party today. Give in, cut-and-run, give up and leave. Chamberlain’s appeasement made Germany that much harder to defeat. The Democratic plan of leaving, appeasement, and quitting in Iraq would make the extremists that much harder to defeat as well.
Like the Balkins before WWI, the Middle East is the new powder keg of the world. Added to the mix is Iran and Syria, who are sending, funding, and training terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are killing our troops, spreading their version of Islamic extremism around the world and creating chaos in a region already on the brink outright war. These are the people with which the Democrats want to negotiate?
It is impossible to negotiate with Islamic extremists who are trying to kill us. To negotiate now would be the same as giving up, leaving, or cutting-and-running. It is too bad that the Democrats are not like their predecessors of the past. The difference between the two can be tied to one word: win. The old Democrats knew what the word meant. The Democrats today believe the word is too divisive to use. After all, we don’t want to make the terrorists feel bad. They have feeling too, you know.
President Roosevelt would roll over in his grave if he found out how his party had become the new Neville Chamberlains, always ready to give appeasement a chance.
Posts
