In today’s Washington Post, E. J. Dionne analyzed the Democratic response to the State of
the Union Address. Dionne praised Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, for his precise use of language, compared Webb’s delivery and style with Ronald Reagan, and labeled Webb a “Reagan Democrat.” Of course, Webb served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and is a former Republican, so it is plausible that Webb observed and admired Reagan’s public speaking skills personally. However, Dionne made this comparison based on Reagan’s penchant for speaking his mind plainly and ascribed the same skill to Webb.
If Dionne’s conclusion that Webb spoke his mind in the Democratic response is true, Democrats and Republicans alike should immediately seek clarification from Webb regarding his misrepresentation of President Eisenhower’s motivations and strategies for bringing the Korean War to a speedy conclusion. A hat tip is made to TigerHawk for pointing out an intriguing comment posted by a reader of his blog regarding Webb’s remarks. In his response to the State of the Union, Senator Webb stated:
At first glance, Webb’s comment comes across as more “end the war now” propaganda, but a TigerHawk reader presented this historical reminder:
As a former Secretary of the Navy, it is unlikely Webb was ignorant of Eisenhower’s “Big Stick” nuclear diplomacy that forced the communist enemy to end the conflict, albeit leaving a divided Korean Peninsula. If one assumes Webb had his historical facts straight and he speaks plainly, as Dionne asserts, Webb’s intentions behind the Eisenhower example raise significant questions. Is Webb, in reality, a Republican “Manchurian Candidate” who has infiltrated the Democratic Party and is now acting on pre-programmed commands from the "Vast Neocon Conspiracy"? Or was his withdrawal from the GOP merely a tactical decision by which he knew he could successfully run for office as a war hero Democrat in a party so desperate for military credibility it nominated John Kerry in 2004?
If Webb was aware of the Eisenhower strategy to end the war, and Webb will be “showing
him [Bush] the way” by recommending we emulate Eisenhower, how sorry will Democrats be for helping such a man get elected? It should not be forgotten that Truman became President in April 1945 and made the decision a few months later to utilize atomic weapons to convince Japan to surrender and end the war quickly. By 1953 when Eisenhower threatened China and the North Koreans with nuclear weapons, precedent had been established that this was a successful option to end conflict. World War II, and Korea both demonstrate that nuclear weapons, threatened and utilized if necessary, bring war to conclusion much faster than the “regional diplomacy” Democrats believe is the only way out of Iraq. The President, though his opponents refuse to admit it, had it right: The only way out of Iraq is through victory.
Not surprisingly, no Democrat has articulated what “regional diplomacy” means when the diplomacy would involve convincing Iran not to overrun Iraq the moment our troops pull out, or convincing Syria to stop sheltering and funding Hezbollah and terrorizing Lebanon, or securing an end to thousands of years of conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Why would any nation in the Middle East take our soft walking diplomacy seriously when our big stick has been pocketed and redeployed elsewhere without defeating the enemy? That’s a question the “clear speaking” Senator from Virginia seems to avoid. When negotiating an end to war, it is always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength.
The fact that this statement about Eisenhower needs explanation refutes Dionne’s exaggerated comparisons of Webb to Reagan. Webb gave us no “Evil Empire” identifications of our enemies (though he certainly fanned the flame of class envy), no direct appeals to action like “tear down this wall,” (though his new motto may be “rob from the rich to give to the poor”) and no glimpse of the man’s personality (not to be confused with military service record), which Reagan gave in every speech with a gleam in his eye. By omitting the context in which Eisenhower called for a speedy end to the Korean War (threatening to use nuclear weapons on China and the North Koreans) Webb provided obfuscation and misleading metaphor where plain speaking was needed. Unfortunately, Webb’s State of the Union response came shortly after my “Recent DC ‘Snow Jobs’” post. Webb would surely have been near the top of that list for his either ignorant or blatantly calculating misrepresentation of Eisenhower.
Technorati Tags: Senator James Webb State of the Union Address E.J. Dionne Dwight Eisenhower Korean War Nuclear Diplomacy Reagan Democrat Democratic Response Manchurian Candidate Secretary of the Navy Reagan Iraq War
the Union Address. Dionne praised Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, for his precise use of language, compared Webb’s delivery and style with Ronald Reagan, and labeled Webb a “Reagan Democrat.” Of course, Webb served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and is a former Republican, so it is plausible that Webb observed and admired Reagan’s public speaking skills personally. However, Dionne made this comparison based on Reagan’s penchant for speaking his mind plainly and ascribed the same skill to Webb.If Dionne’s conclusion that Webb spoke his mind in the Democratic response is true, Democrats and Republicans alike should immediately seek clarification from Webb regarding his misrepresentation of President Eisenhower’s motivations and strategies for bringing the Korean War to a speedy conclusion. A hat tip is made to TigerHawk for pointing out an intriguing comment posted by a reader of his blog regarding Webb’s remarks. In his response to the State of the Union, Senator Webb stated:
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President,he brought the Korean War to an end. [Eisenhower] took the right kind of action... for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action.... If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
At first glance, Webb’s comment comes across as more “end the war now” propaganda, but a TigerHawk reader presented this historical reminder:
Interesting that Webb invoked Eisenhower ending the Korean War. According to this cached google report (and multiple other sources), "Nearly three years later, Truman's successor, President Dwight Eisenhower, also wielded the threat of U.S. nuclear use. In May 1953, Eisenhower authorized an expanded Korean bombing campaign, prompting the North Koreans and Chinese to respond by increased ground action.
As part of the heightened military activity, the Joint Chiefs presented six different scenarios for ending the war, "most envisioning the possible use of atomic weapons," according to an official Pentagon history. "After the NSC reached a seeming consensus on May 20 to employ atomic weapons both strategically and tactically--that is within and outside the Korean Peninsula--the administration communicated its resolve to the Chinese and North Koreans. . . . Both Eisenhower and [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles believed the message had the desired effect" of ending the war, the history reads." So, is Webb saying the US should threaten the use of nuclear weapons to end the Iraq war?
As a former Secretary of the Navy, it is unlikely Webb was ignorant of Eisenhower’s “Big Stick” nuclear diplomacy that forced the communist enemy to end the conflict, albeit leaving a divided Korean Peninsula. If one assumes Webb had his historical facts straight and he speaks plainly, as Dionne asserts, Webb’s intentions behind the Eisenhower example raise significant questions. Is Webb, in reality, a Republican “Manchurian Candidate” who has infiltrated the Democratic Party and is now acting on pre-programmed commands from the "Vast Neocon Conspiracy"? Or was his withdrawal from the GOP merely a tactical decision by which he knew he could successfully run for office as a war hero Democrat in a party so desperate for military credibility it nominated John Kerry in 2004?
If Webb was aware of the Eisenhower strategy to end the war, and Webb will be “showing
him [Bush] the way” by recommending we emulate Eisenhower, how sorry will Democrats be for helping such a man get elected? It should not be forgotten that Truman became President in April 1945 and made the decision a few months later to utilize atomic weapons to convince Japan to surrender and end the war quickly. By 1953 when Eisenhower threatened China and the North Koreans with nuclear weapons, precedent had been established that this was a successful option to end conflict. World War II, and Korea both demonstrate that nuclear weapons, threatened and utilized if necessary, bring war to conclusion much faster than the “regional diplomacy” Democrats believe is the only way out of Iraq. The President, though his opponents refuse to admit it, had it right: The only way out of Iraq is through victory.Not surprisingly, no Democrat has articulated what “regional diplomacy” means when the diplomacy would involve convincing Iran not to overrun Iraq the moment our troops pull out, or convincing Syria to stop sheltering and funding Hezbollah and terrorizing Lebanon, or securing an end to thousands of years of conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Why would any nation in the Middle East take our soft walking diplomacy seriously when our big stick has been pocketed and redeployed elsewhere without defeating the enemy? That’s a question the “clear speaking” Senator from Virginia seems to avoid. When negotiating an end to war, it is always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength.
The fact that this statement about Eisenhower needs explanation refutes Dionne’s exaggerated comparisons of Webb to Reagan. Webb gave us no “Evil Empire” identifications of our enemies (though he certainly fanned the flame of class envy), no direct appeals to action like “tear down this wall,” (though his new motto may be “rob from the rich to give to the poor”) and no glimpse of the man’s personality (not to be confused with military service record), which Reagan gave in every speech with a gleam in his eye. By omitting the context in which Eisenhower called for a speedy end to the Korean War (threatening to use nuclear weapons on China and the North Koreans) Webb provided obfuscation and misleading metaphor where plain speaking was needed. Unfortunately, Webb’s State of the Union response came shortly after my “Recent DC ‘Snow Jobs’” post. Webb would surely have been near the top of that list for his either ignorant or blatantly calculating misrepresentation of Eisenhower.
Technorati Tags: Senator James Webb State of the Union Address E.J. Dionne Dwight Eisenhower Korean War Nuclear Diplomacy Reagan Democrat Democratic Response Manchurian Candidate Secretary of the Navy Reagan Iraq War
2 comments:
I think Webb was excellent in his response. This man will go places. This is what I thought of Bush's speech:
State of the Union
A less than impressive 49 minute speech with only a polite applause from the Democrats. Nancy Polosi looked rather uncomfortable except when he talked about health care when all Democrats rose in applause - but Dick Cheney stayed glued to his chair. The Democrats also cheered the President enthusiastically when he talked about immigration reform. Throughout the speech Bush seemed uptight, uncomfortable and less than convincing. He talked about Iraq with not much conviction, an issue that is most important to most Americans.
The strange thing was that Vice President Cheney sat and smirked through most of the speech and Codolozea Rice seemed to be on another planet.
This State of the Union address did not help Republicans any. If the President continues this course the Republicans are in danger of losing more seats in the House and Senate in 2008. With already the possibility of a Democratic President in 2008, checks and balances will be out of the window.
The Republican lawmakers may need to chart their own course to keep their seats and the balance of power which was so cherished by America's forefathers.
http://blameislam.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your comments on the State of the Union. Having witnessed many major political speeches, I empathize with those who appeared dazed or less than riveted to the speaker, regardless of his/her party affiliation.
My post was not intended to give the impression I thought Webb performed poorly, I merely felt E.J. Dionne's comparisons to Reagan were hyperbolic at best and to point out that Webb took Eisenhower out of context to make his point about bringing the Iraq War to a swift conclusion.
Will Webb go places? Is there room in the Democratic Party for true moderate-conservative Democrats? Was Webb citing Eisenhower because Webb himself thinks threatening our enemies in Iraq (mainly Iran) is a viable option? If so, his newly adopted party may abandon him but he would have support from moderate conservatives. I am hoping Webb will clarify his reference to Eisenhower and answer many of these questions.
Your view of GOP chances in 2008 is a shared concern among independent conservatives like me. Both parties need to stop being ashamed of America and American ideals, and should become reacquainted with exactly what those ideals were, are, and should be. Both parties need to clearly identify the enemy, and admit it is not each other.
Thanks for sharing your views with Spy The News! readers.
Post a Comment