The Quiet Conservative May 18, 2008
Espousing Weakness and Inaction as a Virtue in War
When people think of Iraq, they think of a failed war by an incompetent president who lied to get
us stuck in a quagmire of endless civil war. You can see this by the polls that are done by national
pollsters. You can hear it repeated endlessly by Democratic leaders at every opportunity. It is the
mantra pounded constantly by the mainstream media. And, if you don’t check the facts, there is no
reason not to believe it...other than it is not true.
To understand the profound differences between fact and fiction it would take page upon page to
debunk the misinformation spread by the left on Iraq. That may come in future articles. In fact it
would take many articles to set straight the lies the media has foisted on the country. However, the
most glaring lie is that we have lost. In fact, the opposite is true. It is why you don’t see Iraq on the
news anymore. You only hear on TV about the failure of the war from Democratic leaders in
Washington. To call it success is to lose power on the left. The media can't permit that.
But, concerning Iraq and the war in terror in general, it might be illuminating to concentrate on the
latest offense against the liberal sensibilities by their imagined Darth Vader of the White House-
President Bush- and use that example to expound on the greater weakness inherent on the left. When
President Bush spoke to the Israeli Knesset on the anniversary of the founding of Israel he stated:
“America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists
sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be
an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow
Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
And: “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to
explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we
carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the
consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the
world must not repeat in the 21st Century.
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious
argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” he said. “We have heard this
foolish delusion before.”
“As Nazi tanks crossed in Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could
have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what
it is – the false comfort of appeasement which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
The outrage was immediate and hysterical. Senator Joe Biden was quoted as saying: “This is
bullsh*t. This is malarky. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the President of the United States
to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset...and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”
Speaker Pelosi joined in with calling the President‘s words: "beneath the dignity of the office of the
president and unworthy of our representation" while Representative Rahm Emanuel came out with:
"The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at
the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this
White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and
gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?” This particular bit of hypocrisy was
the very definition of irony as just about every possible Democrat with a passport has been world
traveling badmouthing the president, the war, and our perceived (in their minds) abysmal standing of
the US in world opinion.
Presidential hopeful Senator Obama came out with the astounding statement “He accused me and
other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were appeasers no different
from people who wanted to appease Adolf Hitler,” and- “That’s what George Bush said in front of
the Israeli Parliament. That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and
that alienates us from the world.”
Contrast that with Senator McCain’s view on the President’s speech, In the International Herald
Tribune Senator McCain was quoted as: "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the
president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain," McCain said. "I believe that
it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president
of the United States," he said, referring to the release of U.S. hostages by extremists in Iran on the
first day of the Reagan presidency.
So why did all of the leading Democrats immediately cry foul over the speech that was general in
nature and accurate in its content? Why did each take that statement as meaning the President was
referring to themselves and their party? Because they saw it as true themselves. It’s called an
incriminating admission of guilt.
Former president Jimmy Carter was recently schmoozing with Hamas terrorists and reminiscing
about the good old days with fellow Nobel Prize winning terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. They
probably discussed Hamas’s endorsement of Senator Obama in the upcoming election. Senator
Harry Reid had been busy for months calling the Iraq surge a failure, starting before it ever began.
Speaker Pelosi was currently in Iraq calling for the war to end. Senator Obama was touting he was
against the war to begin with at campaign rallies and voted against it. Like burglars caught coming
out the back of the building notable Democrats were quick to see the President’s speech as
describing them each personally. He wasn't- yet he was too, just not intentionally. The Democrats
quickly claimed the speech as an insult because the speech was accurate. So their outrage was real.
Almost certainly the Democratic nominee will be Barak Obama. This first time senator from Illinois
has been hailed as the voice of 'change' and has ridden on a groundswell of admiration from the left
because....well, there is no answer. The good senator has no record to speak of and what he has so
far proposed has been insane. His proposal for the Global Poverty Act will slave a portion of our
yearly GDP to foreign aid whether you want it to or not. All under authority of the UN- Those were
the fine folks who demonstrated their corruption in everything they have touched, from fake climate
reports to the oil for food scandal, the largest corruption scandal in history.
But as for being weak on defense? Why did he think President Bush’s remarks were aimed squarely
at him? It might be good to take a look at the Senator’s campaign stance on Iraq and the War on
Terror. This is from Senator Obama's Campaign site as posted by Sam Graham-Felsen, his
Marxist/socialist official campaign blogger (really, Marxist/socialist!) “By refusing to end the war in
Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to
give them in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences...
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with
five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most
deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our
values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
First to give Senator Obama a little credit for not voting for the war in Iraq. Presumably there are
about 270 mass graves in Iraq containing anywhere from 200,000-400,000 bodies. Fifty five have
been excavated so far revealing over 5,000 sets of remains. Senator Obama therefore will never
receive any credit for stopping the number of souls shoved into mass graves from growing. He also
will never receive credit for stopping the $25,000 paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers
by Saddam’s government when they blew up Israelis. Senator Obama will never get credit for
shutting down Salman Pak, the terrorist training center in Iraq. The senator will never receive credit
for recovering a ton of yellowcake uranium recovered by US officials from Iraq, (Yes, they got it
from Niger.) He will never receive credit for all those purple inked fingertips seen on Iraqis finally
tasting freedom as they voted for their government. He will never receive credit for stopping the
rapes, the tortures, the murders, and the buying of the UN officials. Senator Obama will not get
credit for freeing child prisoners as young as five years old from political prisons where they were
held as hostages against their parents. He will never receive credit for the restoration of the Southern
marshes and the clean water, electricity, the medical care, the roads, the commerce, nor the self
determination of millions formerly locked in bondage. He will never get credit for allowing the
millions of Iraqis to gain a better life financially.
The senator will never receive credit for establishing a democracy and influencing the region
otherwise locked in totalitarian regimes. He won’t be given credit for Libya giving up it’s weapons of
mass destruction programs rather than face a US finally taking action, not dithering with talks. The
senator will never receive credit for fighting the war on terror on foreign shores rather than here. Nor
should he.
In his plan the senator will abandon all gains in Iraq and invite Iran and Syria to have a free hand in
destabilizing the new democracy. Then he will concentrate on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead.
Afghanis actually like us. We came as liberators, not as conquerors. So, while the Taliban tries to
regain a foothold, they fail miserably and do so while we have the support of the Afghan people.
The country seems to be doing fine as is. Senator Obama hasn't indicated what he would do
different.
The Pakistanis tolerate us, to a point. The areas that are a problem in Afghanistan involve the
Taliban coming from Pakistan. Pakistan itself has trouble controlling the area. There is little
President Obama can do there unless he chooses to invade a nuclear power without the authority of
the UN and against the wishes of the Pakistan government. So there is little he would do but talk.
That is the Senator’s plan for the war on terror. It was the plan followed for eight years by Bill
Clinton: talk. That plan got us 9/11.
No wonder the good senator and all his colleagues screamed like aged dowagers having the vapors at
the president’s speech to tiny Israel. A mirror was held up and they wished to deny the reflection was
theirs. Their indignation claimed the guilt of appeasement as their own. They would not fight the
war on terror, they would talk. The president pointed out that only talking had been tried before in
history and had failed. The Democratic leadership grew hysterical at having this spoken out loud.
They don’t want you to realize their main virtue is weakness, and main plan is inaction.
To paraphrase a section from Bush’s speech “Lord, if only I could have talked to Saddam, (or
Ahmadinejad) all of this might have been avoided.’
“We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement which has been
repeatedly discredited by history.” And so we do, we do.