home > archive > 2006 > this article


Search this site Search WWW

Anti-war liberals are a danger to society

By Charles Bloomer
web posted August 21, 2006

The election of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut US Senate primary and the increased visibility of anti-war Liberals such as Jack Murtha are disturbing trends in the direction of American politics.  At a time when we are in a war of survival against an enemy whose ultimate goal is our complete destruction, the ascendency of the cut-and-run crowd is dangerous.

While no one thinks the war in Iraq has gone perfectly, reasonable people know that wars never turn out like the paper plans -- no matter how carefully the plans were made.  Wars are always ugly, deadly, and destructive.  War plans are worthless after the first shot.  Being able to adapt and change on the fly is imperative, and the mark of a great military.  Have we killed or captured all the enemy?  Of course not, any more than we can say that the police have caught all the criminals.

What we see on television and read in the dinosaur press about the situation in Iraq is focused on the negative, and very seldom covers the successes we have accomplished -- the numbers of schools and hospitals opened, the clean water, the electricity.  Nor does the media report on the successes of the Iraqi people themselves -- the functioning stock market, the new businesses, the rebuilding and improving of their own infrastructure.  The Liberal agenda of the mainstream press feeds directly into the anti-war agenda of Liberal Democrats to be used as propaganda.

But just because war is ugly, difficult, and deadly, is that reason to abandon a major front in the War on Terror?  No.  In fact, to do so is to bury our heads in sand of wishful thinking.

"Attempts at compromise are rightly perceived by terrorists as weakness." [1]  This is the important concept that the anti-war Liberals refuse to understand.  Compromise and diplomacy require a reasonable opponent.  Radical Islamists are not reasonable, but are driven by unreasonable hatred, motivated by the brainwashing received at the hands of their hatemongering leaders.  Being stuck in the 7th century, the Radical Islamist leaders understand nothing but strength and power.  Talk is cheap and a sign of weakness.  Compromise is failure and an invitation for more brutality, more efforts to destroy.  The only logical response is to kill them before they kill us.

We have two options in Iraq -- Stay the course and win, or change direction (cut and run) and lose.  Will we ever have a neat, clean victory over terrorism?  No.  Our goals in the War on Terror (which includes Iraq) are to destroy as much of their capability as possible and to communicate to the state sponsors of terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, that the price of supporting terrorists is extremely high.  Those goals will be seriously degraded if we abandon Iraq, if we retreat in the face of difficulty with a "change of course", "new direction", or whatever feel-good name Lamont and his ilk want to paste on their cut and run philosophy.

Good judgment and common sense are necessary for good government.  But turning over our national security to allies or the United Nations or the 9/11 Commission, withdrawing from the hard battles -- the battles for our survival -- and surrendering to suicidal maniacs willing to murder thousands of innocent people on airliners shows neither common sense nor good judgment.  We cannot fight a war on terrorism simply by adding more X-ray machines at seaports and banning liquids from airplanes.  To win, we need a good offense, not a "fortress America" defense.

The mush that the anti-war Liberals are trying to feed us -- change course, new direction, and the foggy "something different" -- will not make this country safer.  On the contrary, the Liberal's plan will embolden the terrorists by showing them that we are too afraid, too cowardly, too timid, and too weak to face the danger the terrorists bring to our way of life.

The choice is stark.  We can either live in freedom, or we can live as slaves to terror.  The anti-war Liberals have chosen slavery.

So, do the Liberal Dems have a strategy?  They certainly do, and it's called cut-and-run, hide your head in the sand, and ignore reality. ESR

Footnotes:

1 Editorial, Fargo Forum, Fargo ND

Charles Bloomer is Contributing Editor for Enter Stage Right and creator of Liberty Call US.  He can be contacted at clbloomer@enterstageright.com. © 2006 by Charles Bloomer


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

 

Home


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story



Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 

 

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.