New York Times Wrong on Iran and the Democrats

Frank Rich has it absolutely wrong on Iran’s significance to the Democrats:

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

For one, I think the consistent growling on the part of the public and legislators with backbone will keep us out of Iran.

This is an incredibly good thing.

Not simply because of it means we will not enter into a massive conflict of choice at a time when our military cannot handle our existing conflicts.  Nor soley because of the massive loss of life we will avoid.  Because it represents a clear victory for Democrats and sensible Republican allies against a power mad Executive.  Stopping a war with Iran is a badge of honor Democrats can take to the polls with pride.

We heard you on Iraq, we learned our lesson.  We stood up to the President and we won.

Stopping an unnecessary war with Iran would be a triumph.

But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

For all of her faults, Hillary Clinton is still a Democrat, and can easily take a strong and clear stance on the defining issues of the race.  That includes Iraq, Health Care, and the Economy.  All issues on which Republicans (specifically Bush) are hurting in the face of an American public that wants a new direction.  Of course, momentum is growing against Hillary’s candidacy within the Democratic party.  I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the other candidates yet.

Mr. Biden got a well-deserved laugh Tuesday night when he said there are only three things in a Giuliani sentence: “a noun and a verb and 9/11.” But a year from now, after the public has been worn down by so many months more of effective White House propaganda, “America’s mayor” (or any of his similarly bellicose Republican rivals) will be offering voters the clearest possible choice, however perilous, about America’s future in the world.

The “clearest possible choice” sounds really good coming from trusted news personality Frank Rich.  But it is a load of bull.   If that clarity comes from the candidates offering needlessly bellicose positions, “perilous” only begins to describe the fallacy they’d be offering us.  Giuliani is the direct heir to Bush’s rotten throne and all the propaganda spewing out of it.  To suggest that whatever results from that bombardment is somehow “clear” is disingenuous.

The Democrats stand only to benefit from the Administration’s bloodthirsty stand on Iran, and the Republican’s candidates own support for that position.  Either way, Democrats come across as the party of peace, reason, and security.  After all, wars of choice actively make us less secure.  The American people understand this, as do the Democrats.  It is the Republican party that does not.  Regardless of whether or not Bush manages to drag us into another war, the Democrats will come out looking damn good in their opposition as the Republicans cower in spineless supplication.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. “Hillary Clinton is still a Democrat, and can easily take a strong and clear stance on the defining issues of the race. That includes Iraq, Health Care, and the Economy.”

    I agree with all but this.

    Hilary cannot easily take a strong and clear stance on anything. She demonstrates this with every answer she gives and sometimes in the same sentence. She is a public opinion responder and answers questions with intentional vagueness so as to not be committed to her answer. I think her approach is reprehensible. She is committed to herself only and that is not the sort of politician example that should be touted as a “front runner” Flip flopping is best left to fish out of water or politicians out of touch.

    Examples:
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/8/130258.shtml

    http://www.barackoblogger.com/2007/10/hillarys-flip-flops-captured.html

    And the best for last

  2. Michael D,
    I am actually not 100% sure on Hillary. On Iraq, damn it you are right. I don’t see her taking a clear stand on that barring continuous and increasing public pressure (which could happen). On Health Care, I think she’d do an acceptable job. On the economy I am beginning to see she won’t.

    A good and well supported point all round.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: