Goldberg & Kristol On Democratic Cravenness

I'm not calling them cowards because they won't support the war. They're liberals -- they don't believe in war. They believe in "aggressive, take-no-prisoners diplomacy."

I'm calling them moral cowards, consigning hundreds of men to die for a "lie," because they believe (they say) the war is unwinnable and yet will not actually act to spare any of these men.

They'd like Bush to do their cutting and running for them -- so they don't get blamed for a loss. But if Bush won't oblige them, well then, those several hundred new US casualties will just have to die for nothing at all in order to vindicate the greater cause of electing a Democratic president in '08.

Goldberg wrote about this last night.

Kristol today.

It's good to know that there are some causes Democrats are willing to see American soldiers die for.

Winning crucial wars isn't, alas, one of them.

It's breathtaking. They are accomplices in what they often kill the "murdering" of soldiers in order to prove they're "tough" on foreign policy.

Bush believes it's worth losing American lives to take a last stab at winning a vital war, the consequnces for the loss of which would be, it is nearly universally agreed, would be disasterous.

Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi believe it's worth losing American lives to better their chances of winning an election in 2008, the consequences for the loss of which would be, by their lights, personally and professionally disasterous.

Want to talk cowardice? Want to talk chickenhawk?

The Democrats are now actually trading American lives for votes.

The Democratic Party

No blood for oil. Blood for political positioning, however, seems a fair exchange.

posted by Ace at 10:35 PM

| Access Comments