[Marxism] "Democrats at War" (WSJ editorial)

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The most prestigious and influential business daily in the United States
and, perhaps, the world, takes the gloves off and tells its readers that, in
essence, the Democratic leadership is supporting the enemy. We'll see how
effective such hysteria-mongering is, and if the Democrats will bend to it. 
The magic words "immediate withdrawal" have now begun to appear here, which
would, of course, be the simplest and best solution to the Iraq problem.

The photo of Pelosi with her head covered is designed to fan images of
hysteria against Muslims, not a small factor in the United States. Pelosi
was, of course, simply showing the same respect which her husband would show
on entering a synagogue. 

No mention of the presence of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected
to national office in the United States, his role, his reactions and his
reflections after the trip. He seems to be "whited out" by the WSJ. Note
that the WSJ also goes for the jugular adding the reference to improving
relations with Cuba, which, of course, is long, long, long overdue. This is
a perfect counterpart to today's NYT editorial on Guantanamo, both of which
reflect a deep division within the powers that be in the United States.

NYT EDITORIAL: "Guantanamo Follies" April 6, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/64117 
===========================================================================

WALL STREET JOURNAL 
EDITORIAL
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
        
Democrats at War
April 6, 2007; Page A10

Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, 
but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for
something far more ambitious -- to wit, promoting and executing their own
foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.

Their intentions were made plain this week with two remarkable acts by their
House and Senate leaders. Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Senator Russ
Feingold's proposal to withdraw from Iraq immediately, cutting off funds
entirely within a year. He promised a vote soon, as part of what the
Washington Post reported would also be a Democratic offensive to close
Guantanamo, reinstate legal rights for terror suspects, and improve
relations with Cuba.

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her now famous sojourn to Syria,
donning a head scarf and advertising that she was conducting shuttle
diplomacy between Jerusalem and Damascus. If there was any doubt that her
trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding"
trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring
that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as
beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United
States."

Americans should understand how extraordinary this is. There have been
previous battles over U.S. foreign policy and fierce domestic criticism. 
In the 1990s, these columns defended Bill Clinton against "the Republican
drift toward isolationism and political opportunism" amid the Kosovo
conflict. But rarely in U.S. history have Congressional leaders sought to
conduct their own independent diplomacy, with the Speaker acting as a Prime
Minister traveling with a Secretary of State in the person of Mr. Lantos.

Yes, Congressional Republicans have visited Syria too. But Ms. Pelosi isn't
some minority back-bencher. Without a Democrat in the White House, she and
Mr. Reid are the national leaders of their party. Even Newt Gingrich, for
all his grand domestic ambitions in 1995, took a muted stand on foreign
policy, realizing that in the American system the executive has the bulk of
national security power. He also understood he would do the country no
favors by sending a mixed message to our enemies -- at the time, Slobodan
Milosevic.

What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish, other than embarrassing President
Bush? "We were very pleased with reassurances we received from the president
that he was ready to resume the peace process," she told reporters after
meeting with dictator Bashar Assad. "We expressed our interest in using our
good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria."

She purported to convey a message from Israel's Ehud Olmert expressing
similar interest in "the peace process," except that the Israeli Prime
Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had
got the message wrong. Israel hadn't changed its policy, which is that it
will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and
stops trying to dominate Lebanon. As a shuttle diplomat, Ms. Pelosi needs
some practice.

Mr. Lantos probably got closer to their real intentions when he told
reporters that "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue 
with Syria, and we hope to build on it." The Pelosi cavalcade is intended 
to show that if only the Bush Administration would engage in "constructive
dialogue," the Syrians, Israelis and everyone else could all get along.

This is the same Syrian regime that has facilitated the movement of money
and insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq; that has been implicated by a U.N.
probe in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; and that
has snubbed any number of U.S. overtures since the fall of Saddam Hussein in
2003. Perhaps if he works hard enough, Mr. Lantos can match the 22 visits to
Damascus that Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Warren Christopher made in
the 1990s trying to squeeze peace from that same stone.

In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Lantos both voted for the Syria Accountability
and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 that ordered Mr. Bush to
choose from a menu of six sanctions to impose on Damascus. Mr. Bush chose
the weakest two sanctions and dispatched a new Ambassador to Syria in a
goodwill gesture in 2004. Only later, in the wake of the Hariri murder and
clear intelligence of Syria's role in aiding Iraqi Baathists, did Mr. Bush
conclude that Mr. Assad's real goal was to reassert control over Lebanon and
bleed Americans in Iraq.

With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that 
Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his
country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with
the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and
al Qaeda terrorists.
* * *

Back in Washington, Harry Reid says his response to Mr. Bush's certain veto
of his Iraq spending bill will be to escalate. He now supports cutting off
funds and beginning an immediate withdrawal, even as General David
Petraeus's surge in Baghdad unfolds and shows signs of promise. If Mr. Bush
were as politically cynical as Democrats think, he'd let Mr. Reid's policy
become law. Then Democrats would share responsibility for whatever mayhem
happened next.

So this is Democratic foreign policy: Assure our enemies that they can
ignore a President who still has 21 months to serve; and wash their hands of
Baghdad and of their own guilt for voting to let Mr. Bush go to war. No
doubt Democrats think the President's low job approval, and public
unhappiness with the war, gives them a kind of political immunity. But we
wonder.

Once we leave Iraq, America's enemies will still reside in the Mideast; and
they will be stronger if we leave behind a failed government and bloodbath
in Iraq. Mr. Bush's successor will have to contain the damage, and that
person could even be a Democrat. But by reverting to their Vietnam message
of retreat and by blaming Mr. Bush for all the world's ills, Democrats on
Capitol Hill may once again convince voters that they can't be trusted with
the White House in a dangerous world.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism