The Democrats, The War Party?

In The Wall Street Journal, Richard Tofel writes about what he wants the Democrats' role to be in the war on terror.

More fundamentally, it would ask why we continue to seem so solicitous of a Saudi regime that expresses no gratitude for our rescue of it from Saddam just 11 years ago, and no real remorse for its citizens' predominant role in the events of Sept. 11 and in the hierarchy of al Qaeda. This is a regime, moreover, that constantly drags its feet in efforts to choke off the financing of terror, upgrade airline security and end the teaching of anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred to children. A War Party critique would then ask why such a regime remains within the defense perimeter of the U.S. The jihadis want Mecca and Medina; we want the uninterrupted flow of oil. Perhaps both objectives can be met, even if the Saudi regime doesn't survive such a division.

Forgive me if this doesn't sound like any Democrat I've seen in my lifetime, except perhaps Scoop Jackson. I was born after WWII, so Pat Buchanan is the only Isolationist Republican I've ever known, as well. The author recognizes this:

Which brings us to the politics of such a policy. Seen in the light of today's events, Democratic leaders view a War Party policy as unthinkable. What of our "allies"? they wonder. What of academia? The Washington press corps? The State Department? The United Nations? Jimmy Carter? Jesse Jackson?

If someone organizes this War Party, I'll register, but I can pretty well guarantee that it won't be headed by Dick Gebhardt or Tom Daschle. And I don't think Colin Powell will be invited to speak at its convention. I want to see guns, and leave the butter to the Old parties.