Fawning over medals

Dennis Perrin reacts to the liberal swooning over the Democratic response to Bush's SotU speech, which was delivered by Virginia Senator James Webb.

Writes Perrin:

Reading some of the lib responses to James Webb's speech from [Tuesday] night has left me feeling angry and depressed. More than a few have employed the adolescent "awesome" to describe what was, in form and in fact, a pretty standard political spiel. What a sorry time we live in for Webb to be seen as a beacon of political hope and courage. Yes, he was against the Iraq invasion from the get-go, but so were a lot of people, Republicans and conservatives among them. That Webb, like many in the US elite, foresaw the horrors that awaited our entry again means little. Anyone with passing knowledge of the region and a hint of honesty predicted the exact same thing. Are we so far gone that a conservative Dem who faces reality is considered "impressive"? Apparently so.

Note that Webb described the Iraq war as "mismanaged." Not criminal, not corrupt, not imperial, but "mismanaged." What if the invasion and occupation had been successful? Of course, that would necessitate bloodletting on a massive scale, and even then "success" would not be guaranteed. But let's suppose that Bush gambled correctly, wiped out all forms of resistance and put a lethal stranglehold on the Iraqis while Halliburton peacefully set up shop and US control over Iraq's oil reserves was secure. Think Webb would object to that? Judging from his speech, I seriously doubt that he would, especially if Bush's poll numbers were in the 70s or higher. Webb is simply articulating what many in the US elite already know and feel -- the Iraq war was a tactical, imperial error which is undermining US power in the region. Or to use Webb's terminology, it has been "mismanaged," and so it must be corrected, if that's even possible at this stage.

Note also that Webb completely buys into the War on Terror scenario, which he didn't really define [Tuesday] night, though he's doubtlessly referring to Afghanistan specifically and al-Qaeda generally. That's a serious topic that requires serious debate, but Webb wasn't interested in going beyond rhythm phrases like "war on terrorism," the mere sound of which supposedly defines itself and therefore nothing else need be said. And Webb is decidedly on board with an attack on Iran, as he is completely behind Israel's aggression in the region. When the cluster bombs begin falling on Iran, don't expect Webb, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, or any senior Dem, to oppose it -- that is, unless the murder of Iranians is somehow bungled or "mismanaged." Then perhaps Webb might make some critical noises, and wave more family photos at the camera to prove his sincerity. And, as nature dictates, online liberals will again fawn at his feet, marveling at his "awesome" delivery.

Well said. We can all pull our hair out over how "eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government," but the real scandal of what's happened under Bush is how little resistance he's faced on Iraq, Iran, and Israel. Sure, the resistance pops up after things go to hell in a handbasket, as we're seeing now on Iraq at least, but that's hardly deserving of applause. You can usually count on one hand the number of people in the entire Congress who are willing to take a strong stance against the next horror that's coming down the pipeline.

(via)