Thursday, April 05, 2007

If You Can’t Lose A War Any Other Way

April 5, 2007

It is no secret that the Democrat party leadership has no designs on the Global War on Terror other than to ensure it is lost, especially in Iraq. Oh, they deny it, supporters deny it, but nowhere has any of the current Democrat party leadership proposed anything other than “cut and run,” “modified cut and run,” or “renamed cut and run.”

Believing they were swept into power because Americans agree with their ‘failure at any cost attitude,’ Democrats have tried nearly every trick they can muster to undermine the war effort and President Bush.

After unanimously approving General Petraeus as Commander in Iraq, what do they do? Why, theyoppose the reinforcements General Petraeus says he needs and they have been demanding up until December 2006, that’s what.

With early reports showing the Troop Reinforcement is showing some success, they pass legislation packed with vote buying pork that is supposed to fund the Troops and the war effort, knowing full well it will be vetoed. But then they can campaign in 2008 that Republicans refused to fund Troops in War.

In spite of their best efforts, Democrats haven’t secured the defeat of America yet. So, what to do? How about deny we are even in a war and divert the public’s attention away from any successes?

Reuters David Morgan does just that in his April 3 article, Bush success vs. al-Qaeda breeds long term worries. Succeeding in war leaves us more vulnerable now? If that isn’t twisted logic I don’t know what is. Funniest part of his article is the final sentence; "Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," credited to Alexandria, Virginia-based IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke.

Since I am now 5 years older than I was on September 11, 2001, I am closer to my own mortality than I was then too. I’m closer to retirement than I was too. How ridiculous a statement to make.

Not only do they fear our successes hurt us, they now decide that we shouldn’t refer to the war as a “war,” any longer. In a game of pure semantics, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee have banished any reference to a “Global War on Terror” and “Long War.” Of course, there is no ‘political motivation’ behind the move, they say.

By effectively separating the battles in the greater war to individual wars now, the intent must be to convince the public that the battles are not connected.

Democrats can play semantics. They can deny we are at war. They can undermine the Troops and the President. It doesn’t change the fact that we have been under attack by radical Islamists since 1979 and the terrorists are in it for the long haul. This is a real war Democrats and our All Volunteer Military have willingly placed themselves in Harm’s Way for us.

You can call it an “open ended war,” if you wish, but that is how our enemies are fighting it. Like I said, they are in it for the long haul. If our new leaders aren’t up to it, we need leaders that are or prepare to be ruled by radical Islamists.

Lew

3 comments:

Jersey McJones said...

I can think of at least two things wrong with the use of the phrase “Global War on Terrorism” in a defense authorization bill:

1) Authorizing this Administration to fight a “Global War” is analogous to authorizing Michael Jackson to run a day care center (the Globe), let alone to babysit two children (Iraq and Afghanistan).

2) Authorizing this Administration to fight a “Global War” against a tactic, “Terrorism,” is analogous to authorizing Michael Jackson to run a day care center with carte blanche to do as he will with the children as long as he says he believes they have misbehaved.

But as pedantic as all this sounds, there’s more to what Representative Skelton and his Democrat compatriots are up to here. Authorizing, even if only by inference, a “Global War on Terrorism,” is de facto declaring war on the entire world. Even Hitler didn’t do that. “Terrorism,” and by default “terrorists,” is a ubiquitous presence throughout the “Globe.” I would confidently assume that every nation on Earth has “terrorists” committing “terrorism” every day. To the victim, “terrorism” is “terrifying,” regardless of how many victims there are. So, from small acts of “terror” to massive assaults, “terrorism” is a worldwide fact of life. For any one entity, or nation, to fight “terrorism” “globally” is both impossibly arduous and unacceptably presumptuous. It is for each nation, each peoples, each authority to deal with “terrorism.” Sure, we can work together, even “globally,” to prevent “terrorism” and prosecute “terrorists” - that’s called DIPLOMACY, not “war.”

And “terrorism,” is too broad a term to be declaring war upon it. For example, per American law, if you were to call someone on the telephone and tell them that you are going to punch them in the face, you have commited an act of terror. A warrant could be issued for your arrest for “terrorizing” the receiver of that call. And “terrorism” is in the eye, or at least the rhetoric, of the beholder. In 2002, Chinese authorities made an active effort to portray the practitioners of Falun Gong, a Buddhist sect that concentrates on “better health and inner peace,” as terrorists. Somehow I think the American people are not up for shipping Chinese housewives to Guantanamo for performing slow-motion exercizes in the park.

All this aside, words have meaning, and words in legislation have meaning in law. The Bush Administration has shown itself to be irresponsible, inept and callous in it’s application of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. It has shown itself irresponsible, inept and callous in it’s handling of Afghanistan. It has made thinly veiled threats against Iran. The Constitutional authority to declare war and maintain the military rests squarely on the Legislature - not the Executive. This Executive, in particular, has shown a propensity to circumnavigate circumlocutous law, be it through piddling “signing statements” or catastrophic foreign policy. Ike Skelton and the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committe are not playing semantic games - they are legislating responsibly. It’s about time and it’s been a long time coming.

JMJ

Lew Waters said...

Jersey, thanks for the comment and stopping by.

I read what you say earlier today and have reread it a few times. Sorry, but the main message you send to me is that you hate Bush, no matter what. Regardless, I’ll try to reply to some of what you state.

You analogy is something the ‘I Hate Bush” crowd loves to throw out. It is academic as Congress already gave Bush authorization for the war long ago, mere minutes before the Democrats that voted for it started opposing every step of it.

I will grant you that it hasn’t gone very smoothly, but isn’t that the very nature of war? I can’t think of any single one ever fought that was flawless. Still, the war is about 30 years overdue, in my estimation. Ever since the Iranians attacked our embassy in Tehran and held our people hostage for over 400 days, we have seen steadily increasing attacks against our interests, 2 on our own soil. It has been happening under the watch of both parties and treating acts of war like a crime didn’t prevent more, did it?

Although the Republican Party hasn’t been stellar in this war, the Democrat party borders on treason, in this Veterans mind. Disagreeing with the war and how it is fought is one thing. Undermining it and offering absolutely no alternative other than cut and run is quite another. What everyone on the left seems to forget is that we didn’t start this war. The terrorists did and long ago. We can quit, as Democrat wish, but that doesn’t mean the terrorists will quit, does it?

I’m convinced that had the Carter administration stood firm again them back in 1979, most likely they wouldn’t have acquired the strength they have today and he might even have been reelected, who knows?

I totally disagree that we are declaring war on the entire globe. Contrary to the left’s claims, we are not in this alone. Yes, terrorists were and are spread out everywhere (except for having been in Iraq prior to our invasion, so says the I Hate Bush leftists). Even those that aren’t helping in Iraq or Afghanistan are combating terror in their own countries.

The task is arduous, I agree. But, it isn’t impossible, just difficult. What is the alternative? You tell me, I’d like to hear. Just realize that Kumbaya doesn’t translate into their language or plans.

You say you like Diplomacy. So do I, when it actually works. Where has Diplomacy ever stopped terror? How many years and how many attacks must we endure before we realize Diplomacy isn’t going to work with the terrorists? What do your propose we give up to them in order to have peace? The east coast? Destroy Israel and Jews worldwide? Diplomacy is a give and take, a compromise. What do we offer the terrorists and hope they no longer wish to destroy western civilization?

It can’t be money; they have millions stashed away and more coming in from other radical supporters and regimes like Iran, Syria, North Korea (possibly) and a few others. Do we just turn a blind eye to their mistreatment of women, relegating them to slightly better than a dog?

Let us in on what we should give up.

You claim Bush has shown himself irresponsible, inept and callous. Normal words from any member of the ‘I Hate Bush’ crowd. He can’t be that bad as we have had no terrorist attacks since he took the fight back to them and didn’t just sit back and wait for the next one, like all administrations before him did. What is irresponsible, inept and callous is the conduct of the Democrat party in playing volleyball with the Troops lives (again) by undermining not only Bush, but also the Troops themselves, for political gain.

You see, Jersey, terrorists don’t really care if we are Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Black, White, Christian, Jew, or whatever. All they know is that we aren’t conforming to their twisted view of Islam. They are even an enemy to Islam itself.

As has been said and continues to be said, this is a new kind of war, one we haven’t fought before. We are learning and mistakes have been made, as has been made in every war throughout history.

The interests of the nation would be better served by the Democrat party leaders engaging in their beloved ‘diplomacy’ with Bush and instead of undermining him, discuss how best to win this fight, not run from it. We can run, but they will just run after us. Rosie O’Donnell is dead wrong when she classifies them as “humans.” They gave that up long ago when they decided to oppress the entire globe under their radical view.

Like it or not, Ike Skelton and the Democrats are playing semantics. It is an effort to get the public believing the battle in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorists. It is an effort to convince the public that there really is no terrorist threat and it was made up. Sorry, but 15 attacks against our interests since 1979 shows me is a very real threat and one that has to be stood up to and fought.

You and your cronies don’t wish to fight it, that’s okay with me. Our troops do and keep volunteering to fight it. They have even had to resort to petitioning Congress asking for support to finish the mission, the most shameful thing I have seen in all my 58 years, for our country.

Pelosi’s trip isn’t the godsend the left thinks. She is a useful just as Neville Chamberlain was and her trip will come back to bite her, the Democrats and the entire nation in the butt.

If you are worried about circumventing the constitution, perhaps you should be talking to her and the Democrats. Her effort at establishing a shadow presidency, declaring their separate alternative foreign policy, trumping up scandals to undermine the president and packing legislation for support of the troops with meaningless vote buying pork isn’t what the framers had in mind. If they felt the need to pack extra money into a Defense Bill, why didn’t include one single cent for repairs of Walter Reed or better treatment for Veterans, something they also seem to have suddenly discovered, in spite of their claims of numerous visits to the Hospitals?

You are very eloquent in your words and obviously well educated. Wile that may be impressive, it doesn’t make the threats we are and have been facing for some time now any less.

If you have no stomach for the fight, that’s okay. Many of the rest of us do and won’t call upon you for help. We will fight this new type of war and will succeed, with or without you.

Your choice, just stay out of the way if you chose to allow others to carry the load for you.

PS: Enjoy that Florida sunshine. Hope ya’ll don’t get any hurricanes again this year.

Desertmoon said...

Jersey, were you Bill Clinton's speech writer when he said, "I never had sex with that woman?" It's all mirrors isn't it?

History will show who was right.