An Incalculable Electoral Error

An Incalculable Electoral Error

*By Sean Osborne, Associate Director, Senior Analyst, Military Affairs
sosborne@homelandsecurityus.com

10 November 2006: The 2006 mid-term elections are over. The results are in and the post-election analysis by continues. In my assessment of the results I have come to the conclusion that by the slimmest of margins the Democrat Party did not win, America lost. The Islamofascists, their state sponsors and the rest of America’s enemies won the election and they did not have to get us running like Spaniards by detonating a single bomb. They won because a fairly solid core of American conservatives vented their anger at a Republican Administration and Congress which had pinned its hopes of national electoral success on tax cuts and economic growth while declaring and fighting a war against the wrong enemy.

America, you were not and are not now in a global war with “terrorism”. We are and have been at war with Islamofascism and its state sponsors. Iraq was one of those sponsors as was the Taliban of Afghanistan and as is the Islamic Republic of Iran. These are enemies long in pursuit of and probably now in possession of nuclear weapons and all manner of WMD. Even the New York Times recently admitted that Saddam Hussein was within a year of acquiring a nuclear capability. No WMD? What were you thinking last Tuesday?


How slim was the margin?

The two Senate races in Virginia and Montana which placed control of that institution in Democrat hands were caused by conservative Republican voters venting their anger at the Bush Administration by voting for third party candidates. In Virginia, Republicans cast enough angry votes for conservative Gail Parker to ensure the defeat of incumbent Senator George Allen. And in Montana the same thing happened with Republican votes for Libertarian Stan Jones causing the defeat of incumbent Senator Conrad Burns. In the House there were 20 incumbent Republicans tossed aside out of 28 Democrat gains. Except for resounding defeats for Republicans in Pennsylvania, most other races were decided by very slim margins.

Don’t think for a moment that these voters forgot the recent caustic remarks in the UN General Assembly of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad or Venezuelan communist dictator Hugo Chavez. Nor did they ignore the venom from the radical leftists like “Nan Francisco” Pelosi, bag-lady Cindy Sheehan or the biased, sock-puppet mainstream media. In my opinion these voters along with enfranchised but mute or non-participatory others acted rashly by either staying home or voting for alternative candidates in order to send a message to President George Bush, his closest advisors and his Cabinet. It is my belief that message, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrat agenda, was for ‘Dubya’ to get serious about the war. Again, we are not really winning this war because we are not fighting the real enemy. Thus, as I see it, these election results are an incalculable electoral error in judgment which America as a whole must now pay for. This mid-term election result could not have been delivered at a worse possible time in our nation’s history.

Timing is Everything

It is a near political certainty that the radical leftist-led Democrat Party will now seek vengeance on the Republicans. Impeachment proceedings, against the President are a distinct possibility, the requisite bill remains alive despite Pelosi’s claim to the contrary. Make no mistake about this issue, to the Democrats a presidential impeachment is not a legal proceeding but a purely partisan political process. They will engage this process when it is politically expedient to do so. The radical driven agenda will also consist of meaningless and baseless congressional investigations on top of investigations, massive tax increases. Yet, all of this coming nonsense is insignificant when compared to the larger issues before us. We’re in for some real trouble in the next two years.

First the Good News

I believe President Bush will continue to execute his policies, with some modifications, as best he can over the next two years with the help of his friends in Congress.

Now The Bad News

President Bush’s ability to robustly execute his policies will end with fiscal year 2007 which arrives next October, possibly even sooner. This means that, at best, the president has just 11 months (or less) to complete the victory in Iraq, and stymie Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. Venezuela, Cuba and the now rampant Islamofascism in Latin America will not get the attention they deserve.

America, do you understand that with both the House and Senate in Democrat hands the currently misnamed war effort will very likely be de-funded; the deployed troops will be forced to return home before becoming mission complete, our broken and HOLLOW MILITARY will not be repaired, and probably become even more broken, hollow and ill-equipped? Is this what you stayed away from the polls for or voted to achieve? These were Democrat campaign promises they are certain to keep.

Our enemies will make an acute note of this. (On a related note I also doubt the European ability to complete the mission in Afghanistan. The 1990s war in the Balkan’s being what I recall most about of their military prowess.)

Even worse, our coming retreat from the heart of Islamofascism will come at the worst possible time because a major war involving Iran, Syria and Hezbollah against Israel is imminent, and it has every chance of going nuclear at some point because Israel will have to fend for itself. When was the last time radical world-socialist American Democrat’s sided with Israel in any meaningful way?

Other military or defense issues which were not part of the mix or in the calculations of this electorate include the planned missile defense system. Think about it, will this Congress fund its completion? Think again. And what about the complete lack of a robust deterrent against nuclear terrorism? Will this Congress debate and then create the establishment of such a policy? The range of issues is quite staggering which the results of this election will affect. The most significant of which to my mind is the distinct possibility of a potentially lame duck Republican Administration and a radical leftist-led Democrat Congress engaged in massive political gridlock. The inherent danger in this begs this question: Knowing the extremist Democrat political agenda, and whom they truly favor, and the expectation that the political process will be further encumbered with "war crimes", “impeachment” and all manner of political witch-hunting and "Sword of Damocles" issues to further their agenda, how does this nation concurrently and effectively fight an existential war for its survival in a political gridlock environment?

Then The Really Bad News

I hope you will recall the $94.5 billion "emergency" supplemental bill that was hung up this past summer with a Republican majority in Congress? It nearly screwed the war effort as well as the rear echelon warfighter support base just four months before this election. It is my understanding that money will be exhausted in about 4 or 5 months. And there are a whole slew of very expensive Rumsfeld Pentagon BRAC moves which still require full funding to execute as required by law. From what I have learned, because of the war most of those moves were not fully funded. With the coming congressional de-funding of the US military where will those dollars come from? Hiding your wallet or your bank account is not the answer. In fact, you haven’t even turned in a timesheet or worked the hours required to earn those dollars yet, but the radical leftist Democrats have already laid claim to them as their own property.

Here comes the literal financial bottom line: The national debt was raised this year by $3.67 trillion dollars to $9.62 trillion dollars so that we could afford the misnamed war effort along with everything else that must be funded and maintained. As of the morning after the election the national debt was just about $8.7 trillion dollars and climbing at a rate of $2.14 billion per day. This means that the national debt ‘headroom’ is now less than $1 trillion dollars. A major financial crisis exists dead ahead and radical leftist controlled Congress has the purse strings. America, when you voted were you at all aware of this factual financial tidbit? What were you thinking?

In Conclusion

Not being one known to cite significant and problematic issues without also citing possible solutions to them, this time I am somewhat at a loss on how to move forward. Short of invoking our First Amendment rights to hold this Congress feet to the fire with a nationwide petition, we’ll just have to beg the Lord’s mercy and do what we can to survive until November 2008. The die is cast, and those who voted or abstained have spoken as is the American tradition.

May God Bless America and help us.

Addendum

In just a couple of hours the Email flood has been quite intense. Therefore I add the following just to be perfectly clear about where the blame lies, and its not just with POTUS or those who didn't vote or cast their ballots for other candidates.

What a lot of folks seem to be forgetting is that America is still a Constitutional Republic.

While it is very true that the Republican's did bring this election defeat upon themselves, equally important is the fact that we all share some of the responsibility for what has just occured.

Significant numbers of John and Jane Q. Public allowed them to get away with all manner of ill-advised nonsense. The Ports Deal, Border Security, the conduct of the war -- whole bunches of you-name-it issues were allowed to pass unfettered. Public do nothing but whining. We were all far, far too complacent and therefore also very much to blame for the disaster now confronting us.

We either temporarily forgot about or ceased to believe in WE THE PEOPLE and the power we can wield. Instead we were sheeple.

We were not mindful that the American government only has the power we allow it. Our Judeo-Christian stewardship of this nation was virtually non-existent or wholly abrogated in directing the actions of our elected representatives - from POTUS down to the smallest Congressional representative district.

Republicans will now be forced to regroup and get back to the basics and the heart of Christian Conservatism. In my humble opinion, there is no other option than for a revolution within the GOP.

Until then and 2008, and IF something resembling the America that existed prior to the radical Democrats exerting their new found political power is still here to be rescued - we God-fearing Republican's will have to have found real courage and conviction as well as new-blood political leadership. We will need surgery to install a functioning political backbone.

As a Christian I seek Gods Will. At this time and for as much time as we have left, this Christian soldier will not give up to evil without a very significant fight. All of our fallen brothers in arms will have shed their blood in vain if we all do not resist the evil confronting us

This is where I stand, and fight.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/si...hp?storyid=717

Great analysis Sean!

I can honestly say I didn't cast one protest vote. I did NOT cast any vote for for state senator on my ballot given the choice between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown.

DeWine has shown himself to be a hardcore liberal RINO. In 2000 I held my nose and voted for DeWine. In 2004 I held my nose and voted for Voinovich. But, no more! I refused to cast a "protest" vote for Brown but I just could not bring myself to vote for DeWine again. Perhaps if he had gotten the message when his son, Mike DeWine, lost the election and changed his tune I might have voted for him, but the Gang of 14 fiasco just proved to me to me he didn't want my vote as he refused to accurately represent me.

This election was very disappointing to me and I find my self a bit dismayed for it seems that those who were undecided before have chosen the easy path, those who chose to vote by their anger have left a hole for the enemy to walk in and now CAIR has succeeded in accomplishing the next step of their agenda to take over this nation.

Many prayer warriors will need to get some knee pads and buy stock in tissues to bring this nation to it's GOD GIVEN senses.

Ryan- I agree that the choices in OH were poor but I couldn't allow myself to leave the door open for democrats (all anti-US factions), to gain control.

Here is article I posted yesterday, as hstory repeats itself as was in (1976/78). I am like all of you very unhappy about the results. Sean you put all the words together as to what lies ahead. I for one am taking this as we conseratives need to join forces in a united front. Something that has not been done in this country, yes we have this group over here that one over their, but not in a manner that is needed as a fighting force. Make goals that you can meet then go after them, with fire in your gut , we have until 08 to get things straight.


http://www.transasianaxis.com/vb/sho...21&postcount=1

Quote:

---

Time for a rebirth of the Reagan Revolution

What I am concerned about is that the Bush administration will continue to move to the political left, further capitulating to the Democrats in Congress. Truly, it was stunning to hear President Bush in his press conference the day after the '06 Bloodbath that now with a Democratic Congress in place he could finally get his comprehensive immigration reform passed.

---

Yes, exactly. There is an urgent need for all of the "old guard" in the republican party to be shown the door or declare themselves anew to be Conservatives in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

I am most disappointed in myself for not recognizing the core political game being played by the likes of Rove, et al. I know that he told Jayna Davis to her face, that the truth about foreign (Iraqi) terrorist involvement in the OKC bombing would never see the light of day because it would politically damage Republican members of Congress.

The 9/11 Commission was an absolute white wash, and We The People let them get away with that crap.

Ditto for Sandy Burgler and all of the other breaches of security in the past 12 years. The Republicans let them all go with barely a slap on the wrist. Utterly pathetic.

And now we have the equally disgusting white wash known as the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) about to make its presentation to the White House. They're going to say we need to leave Iraq before becoming mission complete. i have no faith in Robert gates either - he was a yes man to socialist democrats before and he'll do so again. Ditto for James Baker.


This election loss wasn't about Iraq -- it was about corruption and malfeasance and dereliction of sworn duties for political considerations.

Again, look at what retired AFOSI Special Agent Dave Gaubatz has been saying all along certain former-paragons of the GOP from Pennsylvania.

There is now but a very few short months to effect a truly Conservative Revolution within the GOP - there is no other option. If we fail, then just stick a fork in us because we are all done.

Seriously.

In identifying the domestic oppostion and threats we are up against, I did not go far enough nor was I as explicit as necessary. These things had to be left to the post-election period. It's time to go full-throttle down that boulevard of no retrun. Read this completely.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24861

James Baker's Second Act?
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 11, 2006

It’s not everyday a sitting president implements his opponents' foreign policy, but that may yet occur in the second Bush term.

One of the more incendiary revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book, State of Denial, concerns the efforts of erstwhile White House Chief of Staff Andy Card to evict Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon in favor of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III. On two different occasions, Woodward reports, Card appealed to the president to have Rumsfeld fired.


In the event, the president stood by his secretary of defense. But worrying signs suggest that Baker – a leading exponent of the realpolitik view, thoroughly discredited in the post-9/11 world, that the price of international stability is the appeasement of Middle Eastern dictators – may have won the larger battle to determine the course of American foreign policy.


That’s one interpretation to be drawn from the Bush administration’s growing overtures to Baker and his Iraq Study Group (ISG), an informal collective of independent researchers created by Congress last March to assess the political situation in Iraq and draft a report of their findings, slated for release in the next two months. Following a meeting with the ISG this June, for instance, President Bush profusely thanked the group for finding a “way forward in Iraq” and identifying the “proper strategies and tactics to achieve success.”


But it is far from certain that “success” is what the ISG has in mind for Iraq. The ISG has been billed as “bipartisan,” and it is, in a superficial sense. It is co-chaired by Baker, a Republican who has served under Presidents Ford, Reagan, and the first President Bush; and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic Congressman from Indiana. However, the ISG’s membership comprises mostly opponents of the Iraq war: Clifford May, the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute; and Hillel Fradkin of the Hudson Institute are the exceptions that prove the rule. The ISG’s associated think tanks, such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Baker’s own James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, are identified with the same “realist” school that has frowned upon military action against the Middle East’s entrenched powers.


Small wonder that both Baker and the ISG have drawn favorable notices from Bush administration critics. Sen. John Kerry, during his presidential run, briefly entertained the idea of making Baker his Middle East envoy. (Kerry’s other choice was the hapless Jimmy Carter.) Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the reliably pro-DemocratCenter for American Progress, is another Baker enthusiast. Pointing to the outsize role that Baker reportedly plays within the group, Korb, in an interview last month with the liberal Washington Monthly, expressed his hope that Baker could convince the Bush administration of the supposed wrong-headedness of its Iraq policy. “If anyone can do it, Baker can,” Korb gushed, adding that Baker had “wherewithal to talk to the president” and explain that “the present course is unsustainable.”


In seeing Baker as a potential ally against the Bush administration’s muscular foreign policy, Korb’s confidence is not misplaced. A wealth of historical evidence argues that Baker would betray the larger aim of the Bush Doctrine – spurring eventual reform in the Middle East’s dangerously backward political culture – in order to court the very dictatorships, from Tehran to Damascus, whose systematic oppression is one cause of the anti-American attitudes exploited to such murderous effect by the preachers of fanatical Islam.


Baker’s role in the first Gulf War is illustrative. As an advisor and Secretary of State under President Bush père, Baker played a key role in preventing a decisive end to Saddam Hussein’s provocations. Prior to the war, Baker had leaned on the Likud government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to defy public pressure and desist from retaliating against Iraq’s relentless barrage of missiles.


Baker’s reasoning was simple: By acting in its own defense, Israel would risk fracturing the Arab coalition that Baker was mobilizing in support of U.S. military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was also shortsighted: Baker’s coalition of Arab states refused to support any military action into Iraqi territory, leaving Saddam Hussein in power and setting the stage for the inevitable confrontation between the U.S. and Iraq in 2003. U.S. General Henry Shelton, later the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, spoke for many in the military community when he said at the time that “we left the job half-done.” Israel, meanwhile, was forced to stand idly by as Iraqi SCUD missiles – some 42 in total – rained down on the Jewish state throughout the war. Saddam went on to pay a $25,000 bounty to Palestinian suicide bombers.


For uncomplicated reasons, Baker has always favored a more charitable assessment of his contributions to the first Gulf War. In particular, he points to his 15 trips to Damascus to win Syria’s support for U.S. military action. Forgotten is just how far he went to flatter the regime of Hafez Assad regime in order to secure its blessing. Stating that Syria “happens to share the same goals as we do,” Baker announced in 1991 that its well-documented ties to terrorism were, after all, unfounded. Speaking at a press conference with Syria’s foreign minister, Baker claimed that Syria had no place on the State Department’s list of states that sponsor terrorism. “We believe that, so far, Syria was put on the list without any justification,“ Baker said. Indeed, in Baker‘s judgment, connections between Syria and terrorism were “meant for political objectives rather than analyzing an objective situation.”


Notwithstanding Baker’s willful blindness, Syria at the time was a leading sponsor of both the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The latter group, then widely suspected of involvement in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, received both military and financial support from the Syrian government and the leader of the terrorist group’s general command, Ahmed Jabril, openly operated from Damascus. (Despite Baker’s revisionism, Syria remained on the U.S. list of terrorism-sponsoring states.) For its part, the Assad regime, taking advantage of Baker’s blandishments, used the Gulf War to tighten its grip on Lebanon.


Baker’s vaunted diplomacy yielded few practical benefits. But, as author Rick Atkinson noted in Crusade, his detailed account of the Gulf War, the costs, especially to the cause of democratic reform, were terrible:

Bush and Baker cajoled, pleaded and offered sundry compensations to weave together their alliance: Egypt was forgiven its $7 billion debt to the U.S. treasury; Turkey got textile trade concessions; China was again pardoned for suppressing dissident democrats in Tiananmen Square; Syria received absolution for many of the same sins of which Saddam now stood accused, including state-supported terrorism.

In stark contrast to his groveling outreach to assorted dictators was Baker’s approach to Israel and her Jewish supporters. Beyond opposing any Israeli retaliation against Iraq, Baker repeatedly blamed the government of Yitzhak Shamir, rather than intransigence of the Arab world, for the absence of a negotiated settlement. Appearing before the House Foreign Affairs committee in June 1990, Baker listed the phone number of the White House’s switchboard and angrily retorted, in reference to Israel, “When you are serious about peace, call us!” Baker also denounced Israel’s refusal to deal with alleged Palestinian “moderates,” stating, “with such an approach there would never be a dialogue on peace.” Heedless of the political realities, Baker organized a conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict in July of 1991, citing the participation of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as evidence that the Arab world truly desired peace – this even as the Palestinians, with the vocal approval of neighboring Arab states, escalated their intifada to unprecedented levels of violence.

When his attempt to forge a peace settlement failed, Baker turned not only on Israel, but also her Jewish supporters in the United States, many of whom had grown resentful of Baker’s discernible bias against the Jewish State. This prompted Baker’s notorious eruption about Jewish voters: while discussing Israel, Baker reportedly told a friend, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” As a psephological matter, Baker was correct – all the more so when Jewish voters punished the Bush administration by registering the lowest support for a Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964.

What makes Baker’s growing intimacy with the Bush administration especially troubling is that he has reconsidered none of his views about international relations. In recent interviews, Baker has made a point of criticizing what he deems the Bush administration’s insufficient eagerness for engaging countries like Iran and Syria. “I don't think you restrict your conversations to your friends," Baker has said, explaining, “in my view it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies.” During an appearance on ABC's “This Week,” Baker suggested his 15 trips to Damascus while Secretary of State as a model for the Bush administration, and he has already met with representatives the Syrian government and Iranian ambassador to discuss the future of Iraq. This has reinforced early speculation that the Iraq Study Group’s report, so far from proposing genuinely new solutions to the Middle East, will recommend the old “realist” tack of holding direct talks with America’s declared enemies.

Regarded against this background, reports that Baker regularly consults with President Bush about “policy and personnel” and meets with his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, take on an added significance. It’s too early to tell whether the Nixon-Kissinger era of détente is newly ascendant in Washington, but with the war in Iraq going poorly and the polls routinely unkind, the temptation to recant the sound principles of the War on Terror and forge a separate peace with terrorists and their state sponsors may seem seductive.


By backing Rumsfeld, President Bush has shown his willingness to defy the prescriptions of the James Baker wing of the Republican Party. Now, as the pressure mounts to accept Baker’s “sensible” advice, one can only hope that the president is as stubborn as his detractors claim.