In The War With Terrorists, Politics Can't Be Kept Out
Guess what! Big boys know that there is no such thing as taking politics out of the war. I'm always amused when someone as biased as the New York Times raises the old cry of politics, when every poll shows the conflicts in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, are the major concern of the American people as the midterm elections approach. Under these circumstances, it is utterly proper that people on both sides make their political arguments when major events occur.
I will freely acknowledge that I consider Lieberman a principled man for crossing party lines to support the Bush Administration on war policy. Ned Lamont, on the other hand, reminds me of the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, whose main appeal was to the dilettante liberals of the Democratic left. McCarthy showed his true principles when he refused to condemn the Soviet Union for its crackdown on Czechoslovak reformers in the summer of 1968, and Lamont showed his true colors when he waffled all over the place about Israel's war against Hezbollah.
As Alexander Hamilton said, when he charged Congress to choose for president Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr, that he had nothing against Burr other than that he was an unscrupulous demagogue, and nothing in favor of Jefferson other than that he was an honest man, so it should be recognized that Lieberman has given fully of himself in Congress, stating his true views regardless of party, while Lamont would be another of these always politically-correct nebbishs in the U.S. Senate who follow party, whether they think it's right or wrong.
Lamont may yet prevail over Lieberman, who has declared an independent candidacy, over Iraq, because events there have greatly discouraged the American public. But the drastic consequences for the U.S. if it does finally withdraw from Iraq without accomplishing its goals there, cannot and should not be ignored in this election, and it is proper for Lieberman and the Bush Administration to make the strongest arguments they can in favor of current U.S. policy.
The New York Times, on the other hand, is taking the same cravenly weak position on the war as some influential New York papers did in the Civil War, when they urged President Lincoln to abandon the war effort and compromise with the South.
The President yesterday gave an appropriate and powerful little speech on the tarmac at Green Bay, Wis., when he said that it would be a "mistake" not to realize that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists." Arab-American organizations didn't like that term, but they should recognize that those who caused coldblooded murder of innocents at the New York World Trade Center and now were trying to blow ten airliners out of the sky, causing thousands of other deaths, were certainly fascists.
And that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sponsor of Hezbollah, is as close to a Nazi as they come.
To its credit, the Los Angeles Times editorial this morning was much closer to reality than the New York Times. It indicated the President was correct in recognizing that the U.S. is in a protracted war with Islamic fascists. And it declared, "What the thwarted plot shows most of all, however, is that there may be no better weapon against terrorists than sound intelligence work."
This did not quite say the obvious, that all the surveillance techniques the civil libertarians have been condemning now for years, had succeeded in preventing another 9-11 catastrophe. But it came close, and, at last, here was a nice word about the long-suffering intelligence agencies.