Democrats, 'led' by Howard Scream, appear to be wobbling towards a message regards Iraq. It's, it's, well, ok here it is: leave now with a timetable for victory to support and protect our brave but terroristic soldiers who scare women and children with white phosphorous while providing target practice for the local freedom fighters, themselves vicious terrorists we must stop by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Or something.
Lately I've heard dems say the war is another Vietnam, while others say it's not. We have those who want our troops to leave now, soon, or on a published timetable, but still soon. Let me ask the question--who doesn't want our troops home soon?
Most would agree our options regards Iraq are few--either leave and abandon the ME to the terrorists, or stay and take more causalties while hoping we can get the Iraqis to take over their own security. Backing down has been extrordinarily bad for us in the past, and has only led to subsequent larger and more deadly attacks. So there's really not much more to say, and the dems should know it.
Perhaps our present economy with a DOW approaching 11,000 has left the left with nothing else to squawk about right now. Perhaps they think a backlash against the repubs on the war will catapult their party forward, just like it did after Vietnam. To me it's comparable to betting all your cash on an inside straight 15 minutes after entering the casino. They could just as easily lay low right now.
Speaking of wagering, I would be willing to bet that Bush already has a private timetable regards a troop drawdown. Leaks have already hinted at such a thing. Bush is simply smart enough to let the dems deficate in their hats now, while waiting to see how things go after the national elections and the conclusion of the trial of Saddam. Don't forget, Karl Rove still works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I appreciate the dems' slow meltdown, though, since it has convinced me that Bush, despite his many shortcomings, was the best choice. Well, with the exception of this democrat, perhaps.
MORE 12/6
With all the back and forth on the Iraq war (and WoT in general), we probably need to come together on what exactly defines the war on terror. Various folks have described a world war between free societies and tightly controlled societies. But it's also a war over religious freedom. In the west our religious freedom allows for individual sin, and apart from the set crimes in our legal system, this sin is largely personal. Most understand it will be addressed in the hereafter. Conversely, the Islamofascists do not tolerate personal sin and tend to punish it in the here.
Another largely ignored aspect in the WoT is the battle of the sexes. You'd think the women's rights groups would have protested more, since the Islamofascists would surely love to remove all the gains made and send them backwards a few centuries. "Burka'd and pregnant" would replace "Sex and the City". Yet we hear next to nothing.
Another issue is time. As the years pass our national grief becomes more of a fading memory. That's a natural healing process, since nobody wants to dwell on the past. Yet as it fades, our current reality becomes the daily roadside bomb report from Iraq, a war many now don't consider part of the WoT. Ironically if we withdraw it could quite possibly fulfill Saddam's long ago quote about winning the "mother of all battles" (just a little later than predicted).
In light of some recent events it's fair to wonder if some of us are beginning to blink in the face of pressure. There is a strong desire to return to the blissfully ignorant salad days before 9/11, where wars were waged behind the scenes.
The enemy has not lost their edge, as evidenced by this man's comments. As they like to say, patience is a virtue.
No comments:
Post a Comment