The Unserious Democrats

I’ve long accused the current Democratic Party of being profoundly unserious, and the events of the past week only highlight why that accusation is proven by their own actions. It seems as the only war that the Democratic Party truly gives a damn about is their war against the Republicans – the old adage that partisanship stops at the water’s edge has been ground to dust by the shameless political posturing of Democratic officials during a time of war.

The first indication of the Democratic Party putting politics above the interests of their country comes with their shameful treatment of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki said some things that sounded hostile to Israel. Howard Dean went so far as to accuse al-Maliki of being an “anti-Semite”, despite the fact that none other than Kofi Annan had said something quite similar. The double-standards at play in this case are clear: apparently accusing the Israelis of murdering UN officials in cold blood is acceptable if you’re a member of an approved group.

National Review strikes the right tone on this shameless act:

So that’s how Democratic-style multilateralism works? You insult and score cheap political points against an embattled ally when he is visiting the United States in the midst of trying to prevent his country from collapsing into chaos? At least that’s how some Democrats were practicing their foreign policy when Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visited Washington and made comments so critical of Israel and exculpatory of Hezbollah that he could have been mistaken for the president of France. Democrats leapt to disinvite him to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress, and Howard Dean denounced him as an anti-Semite. We would prefer Maliki to say different things about the Israeli–Hezbollah conflict, but, then again, we aren’t running a major Arab country and attempting to hold our Shia base while cracking down on Shia death squads. Maliki has to do both as he struggles to secure Baghdad. He is now moving to “Plan B,” since his first effort, announced six weeks ago, has proved an abject failure. More American and Iraqi troops are headed to the capital, but probably not in enough numbers to make a major difference. We fear that the chances of soon ending the sectarian bloodletting there are diminishing by the day.

Al-Maliki is an ally of the United States, even if an erstwhile one. He’s sitting on a powderkeg waiting to explode, in one of the most difficult positions a leader can be in, and the reaction of the Democratic Party? Try to score some cheap political shots against him.

NR is right: is this how Democratic “multilateralism” is supposed to work? Insulting our allies? There is nothing more disgusting, more shameless, more petty, and more idiotic than that. Al-Maliki’s comments could have been disavowed in a more tactful manner, but the Democratic Party has all the tact of Anna Nicole Smith – and about the same amount of class.

If that weren’t enough, now the Democrats are calling UN Ambassador John Bolton “a bully”, despite the fact that a “bully” is precisely what the UN needs – someone who will not accept the corruption of Turtle Bay as being an unchanging constant. When Bolton is trying to work on serious issues such as the Iranian nuclear crisis, the situation in Lebanon, and containing North Korea, is now the best time to be launching partisan attacks against our chief negotiator? All it does is embolden our enemies and keep an air of uncertainty over every negotiation.

What impetus do the Iranians have to sustain negotiations when they can use a whispering campaign against Bolton to get a replacement who has a good chance of being more accomodating towards them? The timing of these hearings only plays into their hands. A quick confirmation, even above some objections, would be the right choice – if the Democrats wish to push against Bolton they could do so when critical matters of national security aren’t also at stake.

The Democrats keep putting their own partisan fortunes above the interest of the country. A responsible party puts the country first – which is why the Democrats are a completely irresponsible party. We’re at war with a pernicious enemy that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into a war that could devastate the entire global economy – and the Democrats seem more interested in striking Bush than al-Qaeda.

Such a profoundly unserious and irresponsible party does not deserve to lead – and when those such as Senator Lieberman who call for a more responsible stand are treated like apostates, it’s clear how the extremists in the Democratic Party are firmly in charge.

UPDATE: Captain Ed notes that even Peter Beinart is calling the Democrats on their treatment of al-Maliki. Few people will be paying attention to this, but for those who are the actions of Reid and the rest of the Democrats come off as shamelessly partisan – even if one disagrees with what al-Maliki said (and I do), it’s still unreasonable for the Democrats to so vitriolically condemn him for it – especially when Kofi Annan is saying much worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.