Deadly dirty politics
By J.B. Williams
The Bush administration confronted two wars on September 11, 2001; the globally expanding war against international terrorism abroad, and the political war for control of U.S. domestic and foreign policy at home. Bush and Republicans have "gone-it-alone" in the war on international terrorism, not without international support, but without the support or help of U.S. Democrats. Meanwhile, Democrats successfully used the war on terror to wage war against Bush.
The Bush administration has since been trapped between two equally devoted enemies, unable to fully engage either enemy without providing target of opportunity to the other. On one front, Bush confronts international terrorists and runaway rogue regimes committed to destroying the west and on the other front, Democrats using the war on terror as a tool to regain political power at any cost. Bush can win one, but not both.
As a result, Bush finds himself standing almost alone in the now unpopular war against international terrorism. Democrats succeeded in regaining illusive political power by working around the clock to make that war and Bush unpopular. Yet Bush appears to remain committed to winning the war on terror, no matter how unpopular that might be.
In his January 10th address to the nation (and world) on Iraq, he announced yet another unpopular plan to increase troops in Iraq, as his enemy across the political aisle angled to undermine any potential benefit from such a move. This is not a new practice, but one Democrats have perfected.
A few months after 9/11 and a full year before Bush announced his plan to depose the Hussein regime in Iraq, Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller traveled to the Middle East, acting on his own, to warn Iraq through its friends in the region, that America was going to depose the Hussein regime on the basis of their 17 broken UN resolutions and continued pursuit of WMD. (See What Americans MUST Know About the Incoming Senate Intelligence Chairman)
Over the months and years that followed, Democrats publicly warned our international enemies of America's counter-terrorism surveillance, interrogation and detention programs. Democrats repeatedly disclosed TOP SECTRET national security information (under the guise of the people's right to know, which has never before included TOP SECRET security operations during a time of war). Democrats repeatedly worked to demoralize our troops and embolden our enemy by "outing" our battle plans and making outlandish attacks on our military personnel while demanding civil rights for terrorists devoted to killing an open ended number of innocent civilians around the globe. Now they have the power to do even worse.
Today, in control of both houses of congress, which means, at the helm of every national committee including military and intelligence oversight, Democrats strategically maneuver to finish off Bush and his war on terror by undermining and under-funding that war effort at every opportunity.
The war on international terrorism is a war the west can not afford to lose. The west can not win this war amidst an American defeat. Yet we are on a course to defeat by Democrat design now and hope of victory is dwindling by the moment, as Democrats move to retreat.
We are not short on opinions as to why we are in danger of losing the war against international terrorism, in Iraq or elsewhere. But there is only one real reason why we will lose this war.
As the results of the ‘06' mid-term elections demonstrate, more than half of the American people are not in the least committed to winning that war and now, congress is not committed to winning it either. Bush stands alone!
Few debate the immense cost of losing this war. But the mindless efforts to negotiate the cost of winning the war make ultimate defeat almost a certainty.
As if we didn't already know it, war is never popular. Daily scenes of death and destruction on our TV screens are never embraced by the people. Daily body counts of our best and brightest are never welcome. The cost of war is always high, as is the cost of freedom and security. Yet the cost of losing is even higher.
The morning after Bush's speech regarding a troop surge in Iraq, international news agency Reuters points out "Bush defies public opinion, Democrats on Iraq troops." According to Democrats, he also defied the advice of military experts charged with prosecuting the war effort. Yet weeks ago, during the ‘06' campaign season, these same Democrats were stating that Bush ignored those same experts request for more troops in Iraq. Which is true? Both statements can't be true?
The question Americans need to answer is, can we afford to lose in Iraq or anywhere else we are prosecuting the war on international terrorism? If the answer to this question is no, then we can not afford to continue negotiating the cost of winning. If the answer is yes, then Democrats are right and we should withdraw and retreat from the war immediately, saving as many of our soldiers as possible at the earliest possible date.
What we can not continue to do is sit anywhere in between! We can not continue to play political games with this war at the expense of American soldiers. We are either in it to win, or we need to get out of it all together!
Should Bush send more troops? I'm not a military expert, nor am I on the ground in Iraq to fully assess the situation. I learned long ago not to trust the lamestream press on the topic, who enjoys a lower approval rating than Bush these days, as a result of their continuous slanted reporting.
Is 20,000 more enough? I don't know. But what I do know is this - if we think we need 20,000 more to win this war, we should send 50,000 more! Not sit around talking about not funding the mission in some insane and demoralizing display of politically motivated opposition.
If Democrats were truly committed to winning the war on terror, or truly supported our troops charged with winning it, they would not have spent the last five years undermining that effort by constantly attacking every part of that mission.
I'm not a politician. I'm not running for office. I don't need your money or your vote and I don't care how unpopular my opinions might be. I only care that America win the war against international terrorism on every front where we confront those enemies.
If winning is what we want, then we can not continue to negotiate the cost of winning. If not, then there will be no negotiating the cost of failure either!
Though Democrats claim they represent America's wishes, they certainly don't represent mine. At best, they represent half of America, the cut-n-run half, which places them at equal status with Bush who represents the other half of America, willing to win at any cost.
Article II of the Constitution gives the President alone, the Commander-in-Chief, both the right and the responsibility to prosecute war. Though Senator Kennedy, John Kerry, Speaker Pelosi or Senate Leader Reid, might see themselves as Commander-in-Chief, they are not.
Bush alone must make the decisions that will either win or lose this war and Bush alone will be recorded in history as the Commander-in-Chief who won or lost. What a shame that he must fight US Democrats every step of the way in his relentless effort to defend the American people from the next 9/11!
(c) 2007, J.B. Williams