Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Good News in Iraq is Bad News for Democrat Leaders

When two harsh critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war came back from an eight-day trip to Iraq and printed an op-ed article with the title "A War We Just Might Win" (NYTimes 7/30/07), most Americans cheered, grateful to see some progress, daring to dream that perhaps we could achieve some semblance of peace and cooperation in that worn-torn country.

But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.

It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.

Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.

On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.

Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Jihadist Doctors Just the Beginning of Future Terrorism

The recent failed attacks in Great Britain should be a stark realization of just how much patience and sacrifice our self-declared enemies are willing to practice in order to achieve their goal of a Muslim-dominated world, and it’s a lesson we had better take very seriously.

Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.

The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.

In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.

Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.