< PREVIOUS ] [ 1991 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
After Iraq's quick surrender, Republican operatives are
using terms like appeaser
and sympathizer
to
describe those who questioned the need for an immediate war
against Iraq last fall, as well as those who said such a
conflict could be long and bloody.
Never mind that some of these appeasers and sympathizers were American generals and admirals. Forget that American public opinion -- which presumably is reflected by the Senate and House -- was sharply divided about going to war. Nor should we recall that last fall, the CIA announced that the sanctions would ruin Saddam in just a few months.
The new lines have been drawn. Republicans are patriotic men of action who wisely expend our resources -- money and soldiers -- to restore a feudal monarch to his thrown.
Over on the other side, Democrats are appeasers and sympathizers. Believe it or not, some of these quasi-traitors would actually waste money on the education of American children, even at times when there are pressing needs for more $900 pliers and $600 coffee pots.
These sympathizers appear to believe that Americans would feel good about living in a country where the sidewalks were safe, all citizens had medical care, the banks were solvent, the police obeyed the law, there was a difference between poison and medicine, and the government was not waging war against a substantial portion of the population.
What poppycock. We all know that there's only one thing that makes Americans stand tall -- winning a short war.
After our splendid successes in Grenada, Panama and Iraq, the Republicans own the flag, while the Democrats will get the dubious reputation of being soft on defense -- of, heaven forbid, caring more about people on welfare than about the welfare of the emir of Kuwait.
Unfortunately, the Democrats do not deserve that warm
and cuddly reputation. By and large, they've been just as
eager to neglect domestic needs in favor of defense.
Just watch Pat Schroeder the next time the Pentagon
suggests closing Lowry or Fitzsimmons.
Republicans claim credit for the big defense build-up of
the 1980s. But the defense budgets actually began to rise
substantially in the late 1970s, when the Democrats
controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House.
During the Reagan years, the House, which is in charge of
appropriations, remained in Democratic hands -- if the
Democrats are in fact soft on defense,
they showed
no evidence of it then.
The Patriot anti-missile missile was developed in the Carter era, even though it's now being touted as a glorious Republican success story. The Patriot is built in Massachusetts, a state that Republicans portray as a hotbed of peacenik subversion, but did Ted Kennedy ever oppose defense spending that involved Bay State contractors?
If the Republicans were right -- that the other party
believes in putting American domestic needs first -- then
there would be an excellent reason to vote for Democrats in
'92. But the appeasement charges will come from the same
lips that told us No new taxes.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1991 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >