The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes muses, what if the Dems were running the war on terror…?
The events of September 11 would have galvanized a Democratic White House. And no doubt the president would have decided to strike back at al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban by pursuing the war in Afghanistan with the full use of America’s military strength. After that, things would soon change. Pleas to stop bombing during Ramadan likely would be heeded, putting the war on hold for a month or more and allowing enemy forces to regroup. Months later, Afghanistan having been brought under control, the search for new terrorist targets would continue, only not for military targets.
Why not? The simple answer is the allies wouldn’t go along with widening and prolonging the war. This matters because Democrats are partial to multilateral action, a point Senate majority leader Tom Daschle made as recently as last Sunday. President Clinton, of course, was the model of an American leader who insists on consulting allies to devise a plan to be carried out as a group, probably under U.N. sponsorship. With Democrats, allies get a veto. This contrasts with Bush’s tendency to decide on a plan of action on his own, declare his intention of pursuing it, and only afterwards ask allies if they’d like to join. In short, no allied veto.
Bingo.
Now write something on Bush’s decision to protect big steel. ‘Cause I can tell you this much: next time I go to buy a frickin’ screwdriver, I’m gonna be pissed off at the price…
Maybe “Bingo”, but may NOT. It wasn’t too long ago that arguments were being advanced with the premise that Democrtats wouldn’t have gone to war in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Now we hear that Democrats would’ve, but then would’ve left it there. But, what do we know?
We know that no administration was ready to go to war over terrorism before 9/11, but that the terrorist attack on our country decided us to go to war. We don’t know that Democrats how would’ve have handled the situation.
Barnes is speculating – it’s informed opinion, but still just opinion.
Well, of course it’s nothing but informed speculation, Tony. I just happen to agree with Barnes’ speculative trajectory here.
And if Gore’s public statements are any indication as to how he might be prosecuting this war, it’s a safe bet Barnes is on the right track, I’d argue. I mean, c’mon: our environmental policies and our geographical ignorance are part of the reason we were attacked? Had Gore thrown in drunk drivers and cigarette smokers, he’d about covered the entirety of the Dem platform, wouldn’t you say?
I always take cigarettes on camping trips, so I’m the wrong person to bring up cigs & the environment with.
OK, I already admitted that it’s “informed”, but it’s also true that that when in the hotseat thinking changes. Gore isn’t in the hotseat. Hell, even Chamberlain changed his tune—too late.