[FairfieldLife] The party of retreat and defeat
The Party of Retreat and Defeat By Peter Collier and David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2006 As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran; at the very moment Iraq's democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents at this critical moment for the future of Iraq and the Middle East, more than three quarters of the House Democrats have voted against a resolution to complete the mission. For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning. We have come to an historic juncture. It is not mere perversity or jockeying for position before the fall elections that makes the Democrats refuse to take yes for an answer on this war to liberate a Muslim people, break the hold of bloodlust and authoritarianism in the most benighted region of the world, and defeat terror on its central front. Nor is the Democrats' choice of capitulation simply a reflex like so many other positions they holdof their pathological hatred of George Bush. In large part, in fact, their insensate hatred of Bush is hatred for what this war embodies: America taking up arms against a sea of troubles as turbulent as any it has faced before; America bringing freedom to the heartland of terror. That George Bush believes America can act unapologetically, without the quaking guilt his critics are convinced stains its history, is why the Democrats hate Bush. It is all the Democratic Party can do to keep from publicly embracing the assertion of the hard left as to why were are in Iraq: Blood for Oil! And the Democrats most certainly agree, with the malicious assertion of Michael Moore, although they are unwilling to repeat it in so many words, that the Iraqi insurgents are fighting an occupying power and are therefore the moral equivalent of America's Minutemen. Democrat leaders would have us believe that their present defeatism, which they labor cynically to present as statecraft, is a rueful acknowledgement of facts on the ground in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. to succeed, but because of Bush's bellicose mendacity they were forced to reconsider their support. Yet Nancy Pelosi, the Woman Who Would be Speaker, attacked the war on April 13, 2003, the day Americxan troops pulled down the statue to Saddam Hussein. It was but two months before the entire Democratic leadership was attacking the President for lying about Saddam's effort to buy fissionable uranium in Niger. The war against the war had begun even in the first flush of success. Within a few months, Ted Kennedy was claiming, The president's war is revealed as mindless, needless, senseless and reckless. Given such views as thesethe Democrats' version of bedrock principlesthe difficulties the U.S. has experienced in Iraq have been for them a wish fulfilling fantasy. Their present position America was foredoomed to failis just one short step away from Noam Chomsky's positionAmerica had it coming. And the result of these attitudes can be seen in the way the Democrats and their media allies have conducted themselves throughout. For the Bush administration and the coalition troops in Iraq the battles have been for Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Basra, all engagements with the enemy in the field. For the Democrats and their media allies it has been Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha and Niger, all behind-the-lines battles against our troops and their commander-in-chief. For the Bush administration the chief prize has been Zarqawi, the beheader himself. For the Democrats it has been Scooter Libby. The Bush administration barely missed getting Osama bin Laden; the Democrats barely missed getting Karl Rove. The Bush administration's strategy is to defeat the forces of terror. The Democrats are conducting psychological warfare aimed at American morale the decisive factor in war. It is hard not to conclude that the Democrats want America to be defeated in Iraq and that it is not only their electoral opportunism but their worldview that demands it. This shows how different the Democratic Party is from what it was a generation ago when its stalwarts assumed the moral leadership in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The current Democrats bear no kinship to the John F. Kennedys, Hubert Humphreys and Scoop Jacksons who saw this prior conflict in the same black and white terms as Bush does the present conflict, and whose disheartening moments were far bleaker than the
Re: [FairfieldLife] The party of retreat and defeat
Lot's of holes here McGoo: shempmcgurk wrote: The Party of Retreat and Defeat By Peter Collier and David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2006 As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran; at the very moment Iraq's democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents — at this critical moment for the future of Iraq and the Middle East, more than three quarters of the House Democrats have voted against a resolution to complete the mission. You might want to read the embassy dispatch that is circulating on the Internet as a PDF. It certainly does not paint a picture of a functioning regime. For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning. I dispute that we are winning. We have come to an historic juncture. It is not mere perversity or jockeying for position before the fall elections that makes the Democrats refuse to take yes for an answer on this war to liberate a Muslim people, break the hold of bloodlust and authoritarianism in the most benighted region of the world, and defeat terror on its central front. Nor is the Democrats' choice of capitulation simply a reflex— like so many other positions they hold—of their pathological hatred of George Bush. In large part, in fact, their insensate hatred of Bush is hatred for what this war embodies: America taking up arms against a sea of troubles as turbulent as any it has faced before; America bringing freedom to the heartland of terror. But this is a war about gaining control of the oil fields of Iraq not about bringing freedom to the heartland of terror. The writers been smoking too much hashish if he believes that propagandist malarky. That George Bush believes America can act unapologetically, without the quaking guilt his critics are convinced stains its history, is why the Democrats hate Bush. No, how about the 3 trillion dollar debt he's racked up? Anyone should hate him for that. It is all the Democratic Party can do to keep from publicly embracing the assertion of the hard left as to why were are in Iraq: Blood for Oil! And the Democrats most certainly agree, with the malicious assertion of Michael Moore, although they are unwilling to repeat it in so many words, that the Iraqi insurgents are fighting an occupying power and are therefore the moral equivalent of America's Minutemen. We would do the same if say the Chinese invaded the US. Well, maybe, the Chinese would be wise to put an American Idol marathon on all the networks and then they would have no opposition. Democrat leaders would have us believe that their present defeatism, which they labor cynically to present as statecraft, is a rueful acknowledgement of facts on the ground in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. to succeed, but because of Bush's bellicose mendacity they were forced to reconsider their support. Yet Nancy Pelosi, the Woman Who Would be Speaker, attacked the war on April 13, 2003, the day Americxan troops pulled down the statue to Saddam Hussein. It was but two months before the entire Democratic leadership was attacking the President for lying about Saddam's effort to buy fissionable uranium in Niger. The war against the war had begun even in the first flush of success. Within a few months, Ted Kennedy was claiming, The president's war is revealed as mindless, needless, senseless and reckless. And indeed Kennedy is correct. Given such views as these—the Democrats' version of bedrock principles—the difficulties the U.S. has experienced in Iraq have been for them a wish fulfilling fantasy. Their present position— America was foredoomed to fail—is just one short step away from Noam Chomsky's position—America had it coming. And America does have it coming now. I'll put a big banner on my house in several languages: Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. And the result of these attitudes can be seen in the way the Democrats and their media allies have conducted themselves throughout. For the Bush administration and the coalition troops in Iraq the battles have been for Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Basra, all engagements with the enemy in the field. For the Democrats and their media allies it has been Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha and Niger, all behind-the-lines battles against our troops and their commander-in-chief. For the Bush administration the chief prize has been Zarqawi, the beheader himself. For the Democrats it has
