"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Sunday, October 23, 2005

IN A DEMOCRACY, WHO'S DA BOSS?

One of the constant refrains from the anti-Bush/Left is that the Bush Adminsitration has run rough-shod over bureaucrats in the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon.

The Left has made this charge about the Iraq War strategy, the Bolton nomination, the decision to isolate Arafat, the WMD debate, and troop deployment levels in Iraq - too name just a few.

Let's put aside, for a moment, that these charges probably emanate from disgruntled bureaucrats who don't like the Admnistration's policies. Let's just consider the nature of the attack. The attck presupposes that BUREAUCRATS should have supercedence over the ELECTED LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. This is fundamentally undemocratic. In a democacy the elected leaders LEAD! It's no coincidence that this type of charge is almost always leveled by the Left - because they're fundamentally elitist and anti-democratic; (hence their propensity for politburos, fillerbusters, and panels of experts, AND their distrust of markets; the Left deeply believes that if we only put power into the hands of "our best and brightest" that they would then certainly do a better job managing the economy, for example, than free-markets or the general population. And the Left believes that career bureacrats are "our best and brightest.").

In a functioning democracy the generals, the spymasters and the bureaucrats should report to the elected representatives of the people. Generals must defer to the SecDef and the Commander in Chief, and they must obey ALL legal orders. When they don't, it ain't a democracy anymore!

The Wilkerson's and the Wilson's - and the disgruntled brass in the Pentagon (who ALWAYS want more ground troops, and who oppose "jointness" and Pentagon restructuring) and the disgruntled Arabists at State (who think we should NOT support Israel) and the disgruntled realpoliticians at the CIA (who got nearly EVERYTHING since WW2 WRONG: the USSR's strength; Saddam's WMD programs; Pakistan's bomb; etc.) - are the enemies of democracy. The only reason we hear from them at all is because they take advantage of an MSM which salivates at the prospect of bashing Bush, and RUNS RUNS RUNS with any story which even only has a marginally anti-Bush slant. This is why we've had so much sloppy anti-Bush reporting (from the Gulf Coast to Gitmo to Iraq): if it reinforces their anti-Bush bias, then the MSM runs with a story before they have even checked it out.

Sadly, a lie repeated often enough and loudly enough often gets believed - like Wilson's BOGUS Niger charges, which are not only FALSE, they're absolutely IRRELEVANT to the Iraq War; (Bush's SOTU did NOT refer to Niger, or cite CIA intel; it referred to Africa and British intel - intel which Britain maintains is accurate. IN ADDITION, this SOTU was delivered THREE MONTHS AFTER the Congress gave Bush autority to make war on Iraq; it couldn't have influenced ONE SINGLE SOLITARY VOTE IN CONGRESS!).

Yet the Left - and many in the fickle center - act as if Bush lied about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, and as if this "LIE" misled us into war! This is false. And no matter how many people Fitzgerald indicts - or if he indicts no one, or the Veep or Miller or Russert- or Wilson, himself - nothing will change this fact. Or the fact that ousting Saddam has already had extremely positive effects: Egypt has had a major infusion of democracy (as have some other Arabs nations - like Kuwait and Qatar); Lebanon is free; Iraq has a constitution; Saddam is on trial; Syria is on the verge; and Iran is surrounded.

That Leftists ignore these FACTS and instead focus on the lies and distortions of partisan bureaucrats is testament to the Left's reactionarieness and their uselessness.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have ya' read Brent Scowcroft's latest rebuke of W? It's fantastic!

reliapundit said...

brent was an remains a useless jerk - one of the guys who thought it was a GOOD thing to leave saddam i power in 1991.

he was wrong then and he is wrong now.

also: he thought it was okay if we let saddam commit GENOCIE against the Shias in 1991 AFTER the Gulf War.

NOTHING he has ever said or done in power or out has ever been good or right or true.

brent is a STATUS QUOIST.

and a general who NEVER EVER saw a battlefield.

if he says 1+1=2 it wo9uld be a MIRACLE.

citing him only exposes the utter bankruptcy of the _war was a mistake" position.

he - and his NEW BUDDY zbig brezshinski (another status quoists; the two of them have made several joint statements since the Iraq War) - are AWFUL TERRIBLE FAILURES: zbig was the NSA for Jimmy Carter - (the worst prez in history, and the WORST ex-prez, too!)-
and under zbig we lost afghanistan iran and saddam came to power, too. all in 1979. zbig's response!?!?!? cancelling our appearance at the 1980 olympics. wow.

if you think we should have left saddam in pwer - "contained him" - then you must repeat MUST believe that it was okay to allow saddam to:

(1) shoot at our jets daily; (an act of war which violated the 1991 armistice)

(2) send money to international terrorists - (he sent money to the pflp and to families of jihadoterrorists in gaza and the west bank) a violation of international law and the 1991 armistice

(3) lie in his final declaration (after UNSCR#1441 was passed) - a violation of the 1991 armistice

(4) build missiles which exceeded a range of 500 miles - a violation of the armistice.

(5) harbor international terororists - like zarqawi - whi weas in baghdad BEFORE the 2002 war, and abu nidal, and other. in violation of international law.

from 1936 to 1940 the West allowed Chancellor Hitler to violate the armistice which ended WW1. To DISASTEROUS results. Which made the League of Nations useless.

by ENFORCING the terms of the 1991 armistice (and RESUMING war with saddam) - bush saved us from POTENTIAL WMD ATTCK (with WMD made by saddam and given by him to jihadoterrorists - AS HE THREATENED OPUT AMBASSADOR IN 1991M BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN - GOOGLE GLAPSPIE AT THIS BLOG FOR THE LINK AND QUOTE!).

Bush was right to attack saddam, and the iraqis and all the middle east is better off for it.

brent and zbig and others like you - who atack bush, are in effect supporting sdaddam and tyranny and jihadoterror. like the appeasers of europe from 1936-39.

fools then; fools now.

buh-byee!

reliapundit said...

glaspie

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/10/in-1991-saddam-directly-threatened-usa.html