SAN DIEGO — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean,
speaking at San Diego State University on July 15, was in typical
form, blaming the recent flare-up of hostilities between Israel and
Hezbollah on George Bush. “If you think what’s going on in the
Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in
control,” stated Chairman Dean, “it wouldn’t, because we would have
worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we
are today.” And when Democrats work hard, success is assured. You
remember, after all, how Bill Clinton worked hard to make peace
between the Israelis and the Palestinians his “legacy”? Well, maybe
that’s not a good example. How about when Clinton worked really
hard for a middle-class tax cut? Okay, so that’s not a good one
either. Let’s just move on.
Deciding to take on Republicans on the issue of national
defense, a move that worked wonders for John Kerry in 2004,
Chairman Dean commented, “How can you be tough on defense if five
years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, the Iranians
are about to get nuclear weapons, North Korea’s quadrupled their
nuclear weapons stash…” Now, of course, Chairman Dean is relying
on information from the U.S. intelligence community in regards to
what is going on in Iran and North Korea — the same U.S.
intelligence community that he thinks President Bush should have
ignored when it came to Iraq’s WMD capabilities in 2003, but let’s
not get hung up over little inconsistencies.
Dean’s comment is like calling Reagan weak on defense because
five years into his presidency, the USSR still had thousands of
nuclear weapons, or that FDR was weak on defense because years
after Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler still controlled much of Western
Europe and the Japanese Empire still held much of East Asia. And
the criticism that the steadily more lonely Osama bin Laden is
still alive is an odd one for Dean to make given that the last
Democratic President, Bill Clinton, worked very, very hard to find
a reason not to accept a Sudanese offer to turn him over to us.
What would Democrats do (other than criticize George W.
Bush) to get Osama bin Laden, thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions, and
neutralize North Korea? Dean and the rest of the Democratic
leadership are rather murky on this. But Dean did suggest that the
Democrat revival of American national security, again harkening
back to the 2004 Kerry campaign, would have a lot to do with
winning back the “high moral ground.”
According to Dean, “We’ve lost the high moral high ground
everywhere in the world. We want to be respected in the world
again.” How we do that is to subordinate our own national interests
to, as Kerry called it, a “global test.” In short, American foreign
policy should work within the restraints of the United Nations
(which, for some unexplained reason is credited by most leading
Democrats as having final legal and moral authority). We can again
regain the “high moral ground” that Dean proclaims we no longer
have, if we work day after day after day with our moral friends at
the United Nations who are so adept at solving world problems like
genocide in Darfur. And if nations with veto power on the Security
Council, such as Russia, China, or France, have national interests
that conflict with American national security, no problem. The
important thing is that we be “respected.” Everyone respects
impotence, after all.
The new “tough” national defense talk coming from Democrats who
lambaste President Bush over what is going on in North Korea and
Iran brings new meaning to the word “hypocrisy.” They blast Bush
for his “unilateralism” for going to war in Iraq rather than
standing down because he couldn’t get the Russians and the French
to place their imprimatur of moral authority on the plan. Yet for
Bush to have achieved any meaningful breakthroughs in the North
Korean or Iranian situations, he would have had to have led the
United States in even more cowboy unilateralism, skirting a United
Nations that so far has not even been able to stomach making
meaningful sanctions against either of these regimes. When it comes
to foreign policy, however, the Bush administration seems to
understand much better than its Democratic critics that different
sets of circumstances require different approaches.
Tough-talking Democratic critics seem to forget that American
military moves against North Korea, for instance, could result in
the death of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the
destruction of Seoul, which lies well within North Korean artillery
range — unless, of course, the Democrats are suggesting that we
turn a swatch 20 miles deep north from the DMZ into a nuclear
wasteland. That’s probably not what they have in mind. But what
do they have in mind (other than working hard, day after
day)? The Bush administration has demonstrated that it will take
military action, if necessary, as a last resort. It is unlikely,
however, that our adversaries will believe that a Democratic
administration would take meaningful military action absent
unanimous support in the UN Security Council — and that will make
our efforts at diplomacy far less effective, regardless of how hard
Democrats may work at it.
When it comes to Iran and North Korea, the Democrats really
don’t have a very impressive track record, do they? Give the
Democrats another crack at it, and we’d probably end up with a
Jimmy Carter brokered agreement in which the United States would
pay to build nuclear reactors for the Iranians and the North
Koreans if they agree to behave and stop pursuing nuclear weapons
programs. Actually, I should have said “another” such agreement.
Despite all the hard work by the Clinton administration, the North
Koreans cheated on the last one and secretly continued their
nuclear weapons programs. Imagine that.
Most Democrats, other than Joe Lieberman, who may soon be an
Independent, despite all the tough talk, are not very impressive
when it comes to being “tough on defense.” They’ve been tough on
American interrogators of terrorists and jihadists, they’ve been
tough on the administration for trying to listen in on suspected
terrorists making phone calls into the country, and, by gum, they
won’t allow any friendly Arab government to own any companies
managing port operations in the U.S. (but the Chinese are okay).
Chairman Dean and the Democratic Party have shown themselves to be
real strong on political opportunism, but when it comes to being
strong on national defense they have less credibility than Dan
Rather.
