At Least Some Things Never Change

Democrats offer little in the way of ideas

Ted Kennedy told a crowd at the National Press Club this past week that the war in Iraq is officially the Bush-version of Vietnam. After the rousing applause finally ceded, the only Senator to keep his Senate seat after recklessly causing the death of another human being, Kennedy, followed that diamond of insight with yet another idiotic observation, “President Bush, like Nixon before him, is obsessed with winning.” Victory is somehow seen as a vice. As opposed to his own preference, which like Liberals before him, is a distinct penchant for losing. Wow.

A few days later the President addressed the nation to relay his re-vamped strategy for victory in Iraq. Complaints and criticisms leveled against this wartime Commander-in-Chief have ranged from “not enough troops” to “inability to admit mistakes and adapt.” Well, George Bush came to us with a tweaked plan that includes a necessary escalation in troop numbers and an acceptance of the blame for blunders that have been made since March of 2003. Bush also promised new “rules of engagement” for our troops, which means American soldiers won’t have to fill out a “I Think I’ve Been Shot At” request in triplicate to gain permission to fire back.

Bush claims that Prime Minister Al Maliki of Iraq has turned the corner and is willing to do whatever it may take to quell the violence in Iraq, its suburbs, and the volatile Anbar province. Fourteen of the eighteen provinces that comprise that country are peaceful and there citizens can go about their daily business and support the Democratic process already in place. This means that all those grisly daily pictures of death and destruction portrayed on the mainstream news are coming from specific areas where Sunni Muslims are fighting to prevent Shiite domination. The Sunnis, of which Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden claim membership ran the show in Iraq for decades. They assume (correctly) that the Shiites want payback – thus the violence.

Ted Kennedy, Democratic leaders galore, and media pundits aplenty ridiculed the President’s new plan. When Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), was questioned as to what plan he himself has to counter the one he is criticizing, the Senator said it was not up to the Democrats to come up with a plan. At least Reid is catching on to what we all have known since Vietnam: you wait for Democrats to come up with a plan and most everybody will be dead before they do. That way they are off the hook.

Clinton never confronted Islamic terror and we got 9/11. The Democrats only plan for victory in Vietnam was to cut funding and subsequently sign the death warrant for over a million South Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodians at the hands of the Communists who took over. Democrat-controlled Congress’ plan to defeat the Evil Empire of the USSR for fifty years was MAD (mutually assured destruction; no one will shoot nukes because both countries had enough to blow each other up). It took a Ronald Reagan to stare down the USSR and win the Cold War precisely because he favored MAV instead (Manifest American Victory).

In Iraq, the Democrats want a timetable to get our troops out. Bush has now said that the Iraqi government is aware that November of this year is when we begin to give up on them. Democrats once wanted more troops (at least that’s what they said leading up the elections of 2006). Bush is sending at least 20,000 more. Democrats wanted a new plan. Bush sought the advice of bi-partisan panels, intelligence agencies/officials, and the military generals on the ground and came up with the new plan to increase troops numbers so when a neighborhood is pacified, enough soldiers can be left behind to maintain the peace.

The Democrats and liberal media demand results and answers, but are not content when they get them. The critical editorials and op-ed’s in Thursday’s major newspapers could have been written weeks ago because there was no chance that liberals were going to be happy with whatever Bush said. It is wartime and the Democrats and Liberals have done everything they can to make life tougher for the military and intelligence sectors that are trying to keep us safe and win multiple wars. Now the Left has the audacity to complain that the President isn’t as effective as he should be. Here’s an idea that the White House Press Corp and Nancy Pelosi should strongly consider: why not get out of the way, let the President lead and shut up?

Everyone is aware that Iraq has not gone as originally planned or promised. Mistakes are numerous and apparent to all. I’m just as disappointed as anyone with how things have taken the wrong turn since 2004. We have many issues here at home that need addressing, primarily illegal immigration. Speaking frankly, I’m sick of the war and sick of the unending attacks on Bush.

But, and this “but” is very important, I am aware that our future security is at stake in Iraq and I know that until 2008 Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. If you know and accept these two things, as an American, you are compelled to stop the complaining and start lending your moral and vocal support to see victory occur in Iraq.

Reading through the lines of Bush’s speech, one is confronted with this undeniable fact: the Iraqis are down to their last chance. Democrats and Republicans alike supported (voted for) the invasion of Iraq as a matter of our national security. We freed a nation in less time than it takes for J.Crew to send you your V-neck, Merino-wool sweater. Assuming (probably foolishly) that the Arabs would embrace freedom and democracy, we have all been shocked at the level of violence for the past four years. But, a line has been drawn in the sand. The Iraqi government and people have this year to show the American government and people that they are serious about success. Our patience is not unlimited.

So, although Ted Kennedy and condescending liberals in the media will spend the next eleven months continuing to bash Bush and undermine our troops, don’t buy in to it. You have to choose a side. This doesn’t mean undying loyalty to Republicans. It means being discerning enough to see the “forest for the trees”. For better or worse, Bush is running the show and the only way we will see the leadership we know he is capable of (remember the year after 9/11 when everyone like the guy?) again.

The Democrats think winning is overrated. (That’s why they’ve been so graceful and humble about their recent victory in the 2006 elections.) Well, winning is not a bad thing. In a world as dangerous as this one losing is no longer an option. No one wants to fight, but history is written by those who will and those who win. There were thousands of colonials who thought war with Britain was a bad idea and unnecessary. We shipped those people on boats back to England when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.

When our mission is complete, a working democracy established, and beacon of freedom amidst tyranny shines bright in Iraq, Democratic leaders like Kennedy should have to go live with the enemy they seem to think we should not have defeated. As for me and my house, we will give thanks to the Almighty that we had leaders wise enough to identify the threat, soldiers brave enough to fight the battles, and a nation free enough to appreciate the sacrifices made to provide them the way of life our enemies sought to destroy.