Who Are The Appeasers?
James Joyner at Outside The Beltway links favorably to some video of Senator Elizabeth Dole being asked by Chris Matthews to name Democrats who favor appeasing the terrorists. Joyner apparently thinks this idea of Democrats as appeasers is some sort of a strawman attack, but he couldn't be more wrong.
Democrats do, in fact, favor appeasing the terrorists. Their calls for withdrawal from Iraq are examples of that desire to appease.
An example of a Democrat who believes this way is none other than Jack Murtha himself, who clearly believes that an American withdrawal from Iraq would bring "stability" to that country. The terrorists tell us the same thing. So what else can we view Murtha's calls for withdrawal as other than a call to appease the terrorists? To give them what they want so that the Iraq problem will just go away?
Murtha is not alone in his reasoning, either. He has been made the voice of the Democrats on the Iraq issue. Perhaps some Democrats disagree with Murtha, but to say that Murtha's stance is not representative of the Democrat stance on Iraq in general is just plain foolish.
I cannot begin to describe how disappointed I am in people like Joyner who are dismissive of Sec. Rumsfeld's comments.
Here is the thrust of what Rumsfeld had to say:
Tell me how he is wrong on any of those points. You can't, because he isn't.
Murtha and company think that we can appease the Islamic extremists by minimizing our presence in the middle east. They're wrong, because the Islamofascists will be attacking us regardless of whether or not we're at war in the middle east. Given that reality, does it not make sense that we should fight to change the conditions in the middle east that cause terrorism in addition to working to thwart the plots of terror groups that already exist? Sounds like a reasonable two-pronged approach to me.
As for negotiating a peace with the terrorists, is that not exactly what is happening between Israel and Hezbollah right now? Is the UN not pressuring Israel into a peace arrangement with Hezbollah? And does anyone think that a brokered peace between Hezbollah and Israel is really going to work? Those sort of agreements certainly haven't worked to restrain the terrorists seeking to wipe Israel off the map in the past.
How about Rumsfeld's statement about some believing the war on terror is a law enforcement problem. Is that not something John Kerry campaigned on? It is, and Rumsfeld is right for highlighting that manner of thinking as being foolish.
Finally, what Rumsfeld's assertion that some believe that America - and not the terrorists - are the real problem in the world? That's true as well, and one need look no further than Jack Murtha's assertion that the key to stability in Iraq is America's withdrawal from there to see that Rumsfeld is right.
The threat from Islamic fascism is a serious one, and this next election could very well put some people in power who are not at all serious about fighting against it. I don't think that now is any time to get squeamish about criticizing those people.
Democrats do, in fact, favor appeasing the terrorists. Their calls for withdrawal from Iraq are examples of that desire to appease.
An example of a Democrat who believes this way is none other than Jack Murtha himself, who clearly believes that an American withdrawal from Iraq would bring "stability" to that country. The terrorists tell us the same thing. So what else can we view Murtha's calls for withdrawal as other than a call to appease the terrorists? To give them what they want so that the Iraq problem will just go away?
Murtha is not alone in his reasoning, either. He has been made the voice of the Democrats on the Iraq issue. Perhaps some Democrats disagree with Murtha, but to say that Murtha's stance is not representative of the Democrat stance on Iraq in general is just plain foolish.
I cannot begin to describe how disappointed I am in people like Joyner who are dismissive of Sec. Rumsfeld's comments.
Here is the thrust of what Rumsfeld had to say:
- With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
- Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
- Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
- And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?
Tell me how he is wrong on any of those points. You can't, because he isn't.
Murtha and company think that we can appease the Islamic extremists by minimizing our presence in the middle east. They're wrong, because the Islamofascists will be attacking us regardless of whether or not we're at war in the middle east. Given that reality, does it not make sense that we should fight to change the conditions in the middle east that cause terrorism in addition to working to thwart the plots of terror groups that already exist? Sounds like a reasonable two-pronged approach to me.
As for negotiating a peace with the terrorists, is that not exactly what is happening between Israel and Hezbollah right now? Is the UN not pressuring Israel into a peace arrangement with Hezbollah? And does anyone think that a brokered peace between Hezbollah and Israel is really going to work? Those sort of agreements certainly haven't worked to restrain the terrorists seeking to wipe Israel off the map in the past.
How about Rumsfeld's statement about some believing the war on terror is a law enforcement problem. Is that not something John Kerry campaigned on? It is, and Rumsfeld is right for highlighting that manner of thinking as being foolish.
Finally, what Rumsfeld's assertion that some believe that America - and not the terrorists - are the real problem in the world? That's true as well, and one need look no further than Jack Murtha's assertion that the key to stability in Iraq is America's withdrawal from there to see that Rumsfeld is right.
The threat from Islamic fascism is a serious one, and this next election could very well put some people in power who are not at all serious about fighting against it. I don't think that now is any time to get squeamish about criticizing those people.
robert108
Hannitized
pparets
Zsa Zsa
C. Y.
The Whistler
HG
Proof
