It seems that these days the Democrats have flip flopped on most of their major positions. They have given Bush pretty much what he wants on all the things about which they claimed to be so piously angry: torture, eavesdropping , Habeas Corpus, and ending the war. Hillary, and all but one of her opponents, now concede that they will be keeping the troops in Iraq at least through the full length of their first term in office by which time, of course, they will be fully responsibility for the outcome of the war and the regional aftermath, much to George Bush's delight.
Hillary had long made a habit of shouting, "If George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office...when I'm president, I will,". Then Bush called her up on the phone and suggested that the situation was fluid, she didn't know what she would inherit, and it was best not to foreclose on all her options, some of which she might need very badly depending on how the situation in Iraq and the region evolves. Hillary, in true invertebrate fashion, took the advice, and now all the angry Democrats have no real candidate to show for 8 years of angry screaming.
When you are a Democrat with no philosophy or ideology you can well afford to be fluid in your thinking since there is no system of reasoning to which you are accountable. The huge Iraq flip flop is but one example. Let's not forget Welfare, to pick the domestic policy end of the vaunted Democratic social safety net. The Democrats were sure they could help Blacks but when after 40 years of the near genocide it produced was enough they quickly abandoned it under Republican duress.
Then they merely went on to look for other targets of opportunity most of which turned out like Welfare and Iraq because they were based on expediency or opportunism rather than coherent ideology. Describing their constant non ideological behavior as treasonous is not unreasonable given how ideological the founding of America was. That Democrats merely exist does mean that they should exist, does it?
The most recent example of the total Democratic ideological vacuum is Hillary's new entitlement program. Realizing that the idiotic, ill conceived, Marxist, Democrat social safety net is not there and never will be despite the trillions and trillions of dollars already committed, she has proposed a private account entitlement that each American would be given at birth free of gov't interference (so it won't be totally wasted by Democrats) exactly like the Social Security private accounts she so vehemently opposed when they were proposed by the Republicans? The gov't already taxes and spends $50,000 per year per family; so is her latest proposal a matter of extending the losing socialist ideology still further in the blind, stupid hope that one day America will be to first country on earth to make socialism work , or is it just a matter of buying more votes? Tragically, it appear to be some of both, and worse, Hillary claims to have many such ideas.
In contrast, with a pro American, pro democracy ideology, to George Bush the torture issue, for example, was simple: if someone was going to blow up an American city and kill millions or even cut off one American's head, it was worth it to torture him on the chance it might be stopped. But in the abstract, where most of us live, the Democrats saw an opportunity since torture is cruel and nasty and , in a sophomoric sense, seemingly not consistent with America's high ideals. As long as they could keep the focus on that and not on the reality of Nick Berg's or Daniel Pearl's heads as they were slowly being cut off on video tape for their whole families and nation to see, they could score points on the Bush ideology, and to a large extent they, treasonously, have.
To capitalize on the anti-Republican opportunism in their torture argument, Democrats to this day are fond of pointing out that torture doesn't work anyway simply because someone being tortured would naturally be inclined to make up false information to avoid further torture. The implication is that those nasty Republicans just love to torture people for no reason at all- a good smear indeed if you have neither decency nor ideology with which to comfort yourself.
Of course, empirical logic would have it another way. If someone could successfully lie to evade torture then NYC would have been evacuated 999 times by now at a cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. But oddly that did not happen; apparently because interrogators, geniuses one and all, seem to have anticipated that most human beings might lie to avoid being tortured. Duh?
In reality, most cases require that you torture someone over time (hence the longevity Gitmo) to gain an incremental piece of information that is fully or partially verified before the next torture secession so the harshness of that secession can be adjusted in accordance with the actual veracity of any information received. That's not so hard is it?
And so the Democrat cortege continues. They have no real basis for any of their positions, especially after the collapse of Marxism, but they persist anyway in torturing and cozening America out of habit, greed, ignorance, and power lust, or so it seems.
Ted Baiamonte
Comments: bje1000@aol.com
333
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)