Cinnamon Stillwell

I’m the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. I was a political columnist for (San Francisco Chronicle online) from 2004-2008. I've written for the Algemeiner, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, Independent Journal Review, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, Family Security Matters, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, Jewish Press, J-The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, and many others.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Democrats: The Party of Appeasement

The Democratic reaction to President Bush's State of the Union speech last night said much about the state of the new majority party.

Senator Jim Webb's stilted and uninspiring official response was notable for hearkening back to the "end" of the Korean War. Right in a Left World sheds some light on the history involved and it isn't pretty. It seems Webb and his colleagues see that incomplete conclusion as the model for ending all wars. In other words, meaningless treaties, stalemates, continued hostility and aggression and above all, leaving intact a country that remains a threat both to its neighbors and to the entire international community. This must be what Webb meant when he called, not for victory in Iraq, but for bringing the war to a "proper conclusion."

When the majority of Democrats remained seated during President Bush's comments on "victory in Iraq" and "defeating our enemies," it said it all. Instead of victory, the Democrats apparently long for surrender and defeat. In other words, they are the party of appeasement.

Neville Chamberlain would have been proud.


Blogger Boomer Rider said...

And in the spirit of appeasement, John Kerry officially surrendered this morning on the floor of the Senate.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:36:00 PM  
Blogger Cinnamon said...


Now that's appeasement I can support...

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:39:00 PM  
Blogger Boomer Rider said...

There are no medals for Arkancide.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:42:00 PM  
Blogger MadIvan said...

Hello from Britain - the government in America being so divided on this issue is making it impossible for us to stick around in Iraq too. So long as America's politicians are fighting each other, the impression is given that the mission is in dispute and our role in it is hazy.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats' answer to 'give the new strategy a chance' was really made with the introduction of their 'non-binding resolution' today.

A rap in the chops from the very folks who voted for the war in the days post-9/11.

BTW, there's nothing democratic about the Democrat Party; it's positions, idealogues, or values.

The term/adjective/modifier "Democratic" should be dropped when referring to the Democrats; i.e. "Democratic response" should be "Democrats' response", for example.

Well, once an English major always an English major.....

p.s. It also makes 'em foam at the mouth when it's pointed out.... :)

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:04:00 PM  
Blogger LewWaters said...

The Democrats leave no doubt to me they are pushing for defeat in this war. Their BDS is so severe they would sell out their own country just to embarrass the President.

As divided as they have made the country, is it any wonder that those from other countries, like Madivan, question our own resolve?

Much like Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Iraq in the first Gulf War and Somalia, they haveonce again positioned us to fail and abandon a struggling ally.

Since they seem to be fond of Eisenhower speeches of late, another quote I ran across this evening for another discussion where the following quote was posted, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

What they ignore in the same speech from 1953 was, "The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.

It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.

It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever.

Eisenhower, The Chance for Peace

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger Cinnamon said...

Good point, MadIvan. The work of all our allies in Iraq (and Afghanistan) should be regularly and widely trumpeted.

And just think how demoralizing it must be to the Iraqi government/soldiers/police to constantly hear that the U.S. might cut and run any moment. This push for defeat will have its intended effect if it's not stopped.

GoldCountryRedneck: I've gone back and forth with Democrat vs. Democratic several times. I agree with your conclusions, but as a former English major myself, I have a hard time adjusting my adjective usage accordingly :-) I'll work on it...

Thanks for the great Eisenhower quotes, Lew. That's what we need to hear today!

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:24:00 PM  
Blogger LewWaters said...

Cinnamon, another Eisenhower speech that is often quoted, his 1961 "Military Industrial Complex Speech." It seems the left has suddenly grown fond of lifting a sentence out of a larger speech as if Eisenhower supported their ani-war views.

What gets quoted:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex."

What else is in the same speech:

"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."


"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea."

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

The left's new found affection for Eisenhower is admirable. I only wish they would take him in context.

Eisenhower 1961 Military Industrial Complex Speech

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...just think how demoralizing it must be to the Iraqi government/soldiers/police to constantly hear that the U.S. might cut and run any moment.

How do you come to this conclusion? Have you asked Iraqis?

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Women survey the aftermath of a car bomb. Nearly three-quarters of residents in one poll said they would feel safer if U.S.-led troops left Iraq. Some Iraqis say they believe the U.S. presence has fueled sectarian warfare.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq cultivates ties to Democrats
Expecting both U.S. parties to play a role in shaping policy, Baghdad starts building new relationships.

By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
January 28, 2007

...But the election that changed the political dynamic in Washington also altered the rules of the game here. Iraqi leaders studied and discussed the possibility of a Democratic takeover for months before the vote. They concluded early that even the most staunchly antiwar Democrats would not abandon Iraq. In heated discussions, lawmakers reminded one another that it was Democratic President Clinton who signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which funded the opposition movements now in power.

The Shiite Muslim leadership has informally recommended to ministerial and parliamentary delegations heading to Washington that they cultivate closer relationships with Democrats as well as Republicans.

"They have to see people from both sides, because they are both taking part in the administration of the country," Adeeb said. "Whoever is a decision-maker in America, we have to have relations with."

Many pointed out advantages to the Democrats' increased sway over Iraq policy. Government officials said they had generally found the Democratic position on handing over security to Iraqi forces sooner rather than later closer to theirs. Almost all agree on Democratic Party initiatives, squashed when Republicans controlled Congress, to prevent the building of permanent U.S. bases here. They note news reports of Democrats acknowledging the suffering of the Iraqi population.

"I see that the Democratic ideas are more related to reality," said Ammar Tuma, a lawmaker who serves in Maliki's ruling Shiite coalition. "They talk about the real problems that the Iraqis are facing every day."

To date, government officials said, they've also found Democratic visitors such as Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois less parochial, more culturally sensitive and more willing to listen to Iraqi concerns than Republicans.

"Before, Bush used to order Iraqi officials to do this and that," said one member of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The Republicans were dictating the political process in Iraq. With the Democrats in control of Congress, the Republicans are now less influential than before. It helps us in a sense to breathe a bit more and to have more freedom."

Many of the Shiites around Maliki still harbor bitterness about the Bush administration's push to remove then-interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari from his post last year. They considered the pressure inappropriate interference in Iraq's domestic affairs. They were also angered by recent remarks by Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questioning whether Maliki was up to the job of leading Iraq.

The Republican Party's election drubbing not only elevated Democrats, but also emboldened Maliki, who has begun criticizing the American president almost as much as Bush's deputies criticized him.

"I understand and realize that inside the American administration there is some kind of a crisis situation, especially after the results of the last election," he told reporters this month.

"It's more balanced now," said the Dawa Party member who asked not to be named. "What we're seeing is Mr. Maliki criticizing Bush. You didn't have that before."

Monday, January 29, 2007 6:44:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

How is it that John Kerry can meet with Khamemei in Davos while the Iranians are sending fighters into Iraq to kill our soldiers? And to say that we are the pariah state? This is a man that came so close to being our president?

Monday, January 29, 2007 6:44:00 PM  
Blogger Cinnamon said...

Kerry has made a career out of meeting with and providing support to America's enemies. Nothing new here...

Monday, January 29, 2007 8:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those appeaser-defeatocrats over at the Pentagon are clearly hoping the terrorists win ;-)

The Pentagon's not-so-little secret

As the president and Republicans continue to hype the surge -- and stifle debate about it -- Bush's own war planners are preparing for failure in Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence.

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush. "He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

On Feb. 2, the National Intelligence Council, representing all intelligence agencies, issued a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, as harsh an antidote to wishful thinking as could be imagined. "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."

The report described an Iraqi government, army and police force that cannot meet these challenges in any foreseeable time frame and a reversal of "the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory" occurring only through a dream sequence in which all the warring sects and factions, in some unexplained way, suddenly make peace with one another. Nor does the NIE suggest that this imaginary scenario might ever come to pass. Instead, it proceeds to describe the potential for "an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and a shift in Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences."

Bush justified his invasion on the basis of false intelligence in the now notorious NIE of October 2002 that claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now, as the latest NIE forecasts nightmares, he is escalating the war. But almost everything has changed in the nearly four years since the invasion...

Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:01:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home