Democrats Call Bush Out on Strikes But The War on Terror Isn’t A Game
Frank Salvato
December 15, 2005
In a move that was obviously meant to circumvent President Bush’s fourth and final speech in a series addressing the War on Terror, Democrats held a pre-speech press conference to restate their talking points. But other than providing a sleep aid for those who suffer from insomnia and reiterating that they are willing to place the semantics of politics above the duty of government all the Democrats did was prove to the people that they are seeing the conflict in Iraq as the war instead of a battle.
In his continued and unabated criticism of all things Bush, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was quick to stumble over a baseball analogy saying that President Bush was “0 for 3” when it came to explaining to the American people his plan for winning the peace and that, “If this were baseball the president would have already struck-out.” Reid continued by substituting the term “benchmarks” for the term “timetable” while restating the Democratic talking point regarding a date for troop withdrawal.
Perhaps Senator Reid hasn’t been reading the papers or maybe he has just been reading the liberal rags, but anyone and everyone with a even a remedial understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq sees a timetable – or a benchmark that would lead to a timetable – as something that would aid the enemy. The condition for troop withdrawal (that the Iraqi security forces are capable of securing their own government and nation) has been stated so many times it would be laughable to believe that Reid and the Democratic Leadership can honestly not know it.
Then it was Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) taking the podium to regurgitate the slander that the liberal left is so fond of foisting onto the US soldiers and coalition troops serving in Iraq, even as they say they “support the troops.”
Levin described the protection currently being provided to the Iraqi people as the “US occupation.” Of course Levin either overlooks or dismisses as irrelevant the fact that US and coalition forces are currently providing security for the third of three democratic elections, this time to elect a long-term government.
Levin proceeded to step in a big pile of steaming hypocrisy when he suggested that President Bush tell the Iraqi leaders they had to change their constitution to cater to a minority group. Levin stated that President Bush was delinquent in “telling” the current Iraqi government that they had to alter their constitution so as to be fairer to the Sunni people, the same Sunni people who enjoyed preferential treatment under Saddam Hussein. “They don’t possibly have to change their constitution, they desperately need to change their constitution,” Levin said.
Some one needs to tell Senator Levin that political correctness doesn’t play well in the Middle East. The fact that he would even entertain the thought of telling a liberated and sovereign people, who are embracing the idea of democracy in crafting their first constitution, how they have to word their fundamental laws is arrogant and appalling. The new Iraqi government, for all its shortcomings, flaws and temporary status is still sovereign.
What is even more amazing than the monotony of the repeated and repackaged talking points of the liberal left is that they still haven’t come to grips with the fact that the conflict in Iraq is but a battle in the overall War on Terror. Their vision doesn’t extend beyond “getting the troops home.”
The Iraqi elections prove that the United States and those who have stood by us have given the gift of democracy to the people of Iraq. While we would most certainly enjoy seeing an Iraqi government emerge that is based on the principles of freedom rather than the volatile tenets of a theocracy based in Islam, those choices are now in the hands of the Iraqi people rather than those of a ruthless dictator.
Still, the successes in Iraq are but the fruits of victory from one battle. Radical Islam and the terrorism it uses to intimidate, threaten and oppress, continues to exist around the globe. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiya and Jana'at al-Tawhid wa'al Jihad, among dozens more, continue to wage war – declared war – against the West and especially the United States.
With many of these terrorist groups establishing dormant cells in countries around the globe – including the United States – courtesy of the “tolerance” of political correctness run amok, it is the person with vision that realizes the biggest battles of this global war on terrorism, the World War, are yet to be fought.
With the liberal left Democrats and their leaders so obliviously and exclusively focused on political opportunism, one can only deduce that they will be useless in the upcoming battles. Further, if they continue putting politics and politically correct ideology – obstacles – in play at the expense of affording our soldiers the best chance of victory they will have indeed achieved transformation from “loyal opposition” to liability.
So, the question begs to be asked: Democrats, are you with us or against us?
In his continued and unabated criticism of all things Bush, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was quick to stumble over a baseball analogy saying that President Bush was “0 for 3” when it came to explaining to the American people his plan for winning the peace and that, “If this were baseball the president would have already struck-out.” Reid continued by substituting the term “benchmarks” for the term “timetable” while restating the Democratic talking point regarding a date for troop withdrawal.
Perhaps Senator Reid hasn’t been reading the papers or maybe he has just been reading the liberal rags, but anyone and everyone with a even a remedial understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq sees a timetable – or a benchmark that would lead to a timetable – as something that would aid the enemy. The condition for troop withdrawal (that the Iraqi security forces are capable of securing their own government and nation) has been stated so many times it would be laughable to believe that Reid and the Democratic Leadership can honestly not know it.
Then it was Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) taking the podium to regurgitate the slander that the liberal left is so fond of foisting onto the US soldiers and coalition troops serving in Iraq, even as they say they “support the troops.”
Levin described the protection currently being provided to the Iraqi people as the “US occupation.” Of course Levin either overlooks or dismisses as irrelevant the fact that US and coalition forces are currently providing security for the third of three democratic elections, this time to elect a long-term government.
Levin proceeded to step in a big pile of steaming hypocrisy when he suggested that President Bush tell the Iraqi leaders they had to change their constitution to cater to a minority group. Levin stated that President Bush was delinquent in “telling” the current Iraqi government that they had to alter their constitution so as to be fairer to the Sunni people, the same Sunni people who enjoyed preferential treatment under Saddam Hussein. “They don’t possibly have to change their constitution, they desperately need to change their constitution,” Levin said.
Some one needs to tell Senator Levin that political correctness doesn’t play well in the Middle East. The fact that he would even entertain the thought of telling a liberated and sovereign people, who are embracing the idea of democracy in crafting their first constitution, how they have to word their fundamental laws is arrogant and appalling. The new Iraqi government, for all its shortcomings, flaws and temporary status is still sovereign.
What is even more amazing than the monotony of the repeated and repackaged talking points of the liberal left is that they still haven’t come to grips with the fact that the conflict in Iraq is but a battle in the overall War on Terror. Their vision doesn’t extend beyond “getting the troops home.”
The Iraqi elections prove that the United States and those who have stood by us have given the gift of democracy to the people of Iraq. While we would most certainly enjoy seeing an Iraqi government emerge that is based on the principles of freedom rather than the volatile tenets of a theocracy based in Islam, those choices are now in the hands of the Iraqi people rather than those of a ruthless dictator.
Still, the successes in Iraq are but the fruits of victory from one battle. Radical Islam and the terrorism it uses to intimidate, threaten and oppress, continues to exist around the globe. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiya and Jana'at al-Tawhid wa'al Jihad, among dozens more, continue to wage war – declared war – against the West and especially the United States.
With many of these terrorist groups establishing dormant cells in countries around the globe – including the United States – courtesy of the “tolerance” of political correctness run amok, it is the person with vision that realizes the biggest battles of this global war on terrorism, the World War, are yet to be fought.
With the liberal left Democrats and their leaders so obliviously and exclusively focused on political opportunism, one can only deduce that they will be useless in the upcoming battles. Further, if they continue putting politics and politically correct ideology – obstacles – in play at the expense of affording our soldiers the best chance of victory they will have indeed achieved transformation from “loyal opposition” to liability.
So, the question begs to be asked: Democrats, are you with us or against us?
Print
Email
