« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why the GWOT is not an issue in the midterms.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  October 18th, 2010 at 07:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via Hot Air Headlines, Tom Brokaw does not understand why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not looming issues in this year’s election; or, indeed, really issues at all.  He doesn’t bother to even try to answer the question, himself – apparently, Brokaw decided that his wordcount was better suited towards the production of ponderous melancholia – but fortunately I’m here to explain things to him.

In order:

  • The Defense Hawk Right (there is effectively no Defense Hawk Left anymore, by the way, at least among our ruling class: merely a residue of crass opportunists, politicians of negotiable affection, and a very lonely Joe Lieberman) is not bringing up the issue because, well, we won the major elements of the debate and we don’t want to push the President unless he goes more wobbly than he already has.  Barack Obama’s no George W. Bush when it comes to protecting the country, of course; but you have to work with what you have, and right now we’re kind of stuck with him.  Besides, there’s …
  • The Non-Interventionist Right, who are largely staying out of this debate until at least after the election, mostly because they expect to be a strong part of a new, much larger GOP caucus.  Even after the election there’s going to be quite enough to do with smashing recent progressive domestic policy advances to justify wasting time on pointless internecine squabbling (at least for a while) over a foreign policy that has largely been implemented, anyway.  And, again, it’ll be more fun to kick around…
  • The Progressives, who are not bringing up the wars because it won’t win them elections as incumbents, the President is inconveniently Democratic right now, and none of them actually in power ever really gave a… rip… about brown people who don’t vote.

I think that covers everybody… oh, wait:

  • The Rest of the Democratic Party.  They might have cared – vaguely, and in a somewhat pro forma way – except right now they’re too busy stocking up on bottled water and canned goods.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Rusty_S

    But you covered that under the heading “progressives.”

  • The_Rebel

    Back in the early 1980′s, I remember Brokaw being one of the most strident opponents of Ronald Reagan. All Reagan did was to institute massive tax cuts which led the market to rise from about 800 in 1982 to 10,000 by the year 2000. Some 15 million jobs were created during Reagan’s term, and the economy grew some 40%. I remember Brokaw commenting early on about Reagan’s policies, and I found the quote I was looking for in this 1983 interview Brokaw had with the far left magazine, Mother Jones:

    ?I thought from the outset that his ?supply side? [theory] was just a disaster. I knew of no one who felt that it was going to work, outside of a small collection of zealots in Washington and at USC ? Arthur Laffer, Jack Kemp. What I thought quite outrageous was the business community, which for years carped and complained that it could never get a President sympathetic to its needs, finally got its champion, Ronald Reagan. Then, to its horror, it discovered that he was actually going to press ahead with supply side ? a theory whose disastrous consequences business people began desperately to prepare for, but did not publicly warn the rest of the country about. They knew it simply could not work. But what they did was look to their own little life raft and not to anyone else?s.?

    He’s just whining now about the wars not being a major issue because his party is getting its #$@ kicked on all of the other issues.

    And his other lefty friend and anchor, now departed, John Chancellor had this commentary on the NBC Nightly News, November 20, 1990:

    ?Some say Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by spending so much on defense that the Kremlin went bankrupt trying to keep up. That won?t wash. During Reagan?s presidency the United States itself became a bankrupt country.?

    Funny, if he were here today, I wonder if he would think Obama had bankrupted the country?

    ?I thought from the outset that his ?supply side? [theory] was just a disaster. I knew of no one who felt that it was going to work, outside of a small collection of zealots in Washington and at USC ? Arthur Laffer, Jack Kemp. What I thought quite outrageous was the business community, which for years carped and complained that it could never get a President sympathetic to its needs, finally got its champion, Ronald Reagan. Then, to its horror, it discovered that he was actually going to press ahead with supply side ? a theory whose disastrous consequences businesspeople began desperately to prepare for, but did not publicly warn the rest of the country about. They knew it simply could not work. But what they did was look to their own little life raft and not to anyone else?s.?

  • The_Rebel

    n/t

  • heir2freedom

    When you’re out of work with no prospects of a job anywhere in sight, a war Obama has already conceded and announced a pullout date for thousands of miles away just doesn’t seem a pressing issue.

    NEW POST:

    CONFIRMED: COLUMNIST EUGENE ROBINSON HATES WHITE CONSERVATIVES
    http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/confirmed-columnist-eugene-robinson.html

  • Adjoran

    Wow, Brokaw probably doesn’t understand anything too complicated for an early-morning weatherman from Nebraska to comprehend, which is what he began as and never progressed intellectually beyond.

    What his 1983 quote meant about businesses being “horrified” was quite true for the biggest corporations, who were used to getting favors and competitive advantages from the Congress, and so could comfortably oppose anything which might help the smaller companies who were their competition and who lacked their influence.

    When you puzzle why some big corporations’ donations favor Democrats today, the answer is exactly the same, btw.

  • jeffreywturner

    It is simple.

    In the 7 & 1/2 years following 9/11, George W. Bush did a fantastic job of bringing the iron fist down on terrorism so effectively, that Americans have been able to afford the luxury of not thinking about terrorism all that much.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    The other thing they don’t want to mention is that they’re probably making a bigger mess of things for later down the road, i.e. screwing up horribly what should be a slam dunk at this point….

  • Marcus_Traianus

    and that it is largely the Democrat Party which is the antithesis of that statement. After all, there is plenty of facts to support that supposition.

    Conversely in that regard, and by the current majorities actions, A-stan has largely become the forgotten war. It is a line in a speech, a photo opportunity a “tool” to credential their global strategy. It is a place where brave men go to serve and die if necessary; in the name of freedoms for which this generation of Democratic Party members have little regard. It is ultimately a “means to an end”.

    When the administration struck the GWOT moniker, it was akin to Carcalla striking Geta’s name from the Arch; a deed to deny or confirm existence. It was an attempt to paint this effort anew with their brush. And indeed they have.

    So while I disagree with Brokaw this should be raised in the current political theater, I would somewhat agree the issue is noticeably absent from a majority of the dialogue- save a few throw away lines in some soon forgotten speech.

    Yes, we as a group have and continue to support our troops and honor their sacrifice. But in a holistic, under-girding and continual sense have we as a party given all, never surrendered and been continually vigilant and vocal with out heartfelt support? I think we should ask our guardians that question. Anything else would be self-serving.