Do not be sidetracked by the latest “October surprise.” The bottom line on the 2006 election is whether the American people will vote to support the aggressive pursuit of terrorists across the world or succumb to the demagogues who want to direct energy, resources and security to their ultimate goal of impeaching President Bush. To put control of Congress in the hands of the “terrorism be damned, it’s time to get even” crowd could result in a catastrophe for this nation. Despite years of conflict in which survival of the civilized world is the prize, thanks to liberals and their media enablers many in the public think this war is optional.
While America addresses what undoubtedly is the ultimate challenge of the 21st century, Democrats contemplate control of Congress as the springboard for their No. 1 priority: commencement of investigations and impeachment hearings. With no positive agenda to confront Islamic fascism—yes, I dare call it what it is—they are prepared to go after the perceived No. 1 bad guy: George W. Bush, a wartime President in the middle of an unprecedented battle against an unconventional enemy.
Democrats temporarily dampened their rhetoric during the campaign, sensing the public would be appalled to learn this is the sum total of their agenda in these difficult times. But they are on record, content for now to let the issue lie quiescent, simmering on the back burner until after the election. They hope to slide into power on the discontent surrounding a long difficult involvement. A war they viscerally oppose, do not understand, but have identified the President as the enemy.
After more than a quarter-century of a stealth war against Western interests, this President got the message loud and clear on 9/11: Go on offense, so we do not have to fight on U.S. soil. Which Democrat could be trusted to address the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran? Certainly not those who sold them nuclear technology in 1990s. Does anyone really believe Democratic assertions that they support the war on terrorism but believe it should be fought elsewhere?
Democrats claim they will fight a smarter war, no specifics of course. Perhaps like Bill Clinton did, particularly on the public—relations front: ignore it, hope it goes away, pass it off on a subsequent administration and have a good time. Democrats do not like it when their circumlocution is called “cut and run.” Maybe “cut and run lite” is more descriptive: Withdraw to Okinawa and wait for a signal to return. Why not South Beach? It makes as much sense.
The same people who claim Bush did not do enough in his first seven months in office are the ones who held up key national security appointments in those early days—confirming the FBI director only days before 9/11—and who continued to do so to this day for similar petty political reasons. Meanwhile, our security hangs in the balance.
Democrats rejoiced thinking they killed renewal of the Patriot Act, they opposed the NSA terrorist surveillance program and applauded illegally leaked information, even though the intercepts foiled attacks on our nation and saved American lives. The same applied when secret CIA prisons were exposed or the SWIFT bank money transfer operations were outed. They blew the Abu Ghraib scandal out of all proportion and object to the treatment of the most heinous terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. They insist on only the most genteel interrogation tactics and constitutional protections beyond those afforded a common criminal suspect in U.S. custody or a member of our armed services in military courts. They oppose mining of phone records, an anti-missile defense system, ditto drilling for oil in ANWR.
They salute the New York Times for its selective leaks of National Intelligence Estimate information, which suggests terrorism has gotten worse since the preemptive war in Iraq. When a comprehensive multi- page summary tends to vitiate that conclusion, they demand the entire report be made public, even if it compromises sources and methods. The end justifies the means. All the while knowing each and every breach of security makes it more difficult to fight and defend against this amorphous enemy that transcends traditional country boundaries and fights with no identifiable uniform.
The familiar indignation will be heard: Question Bush policies and you are labeled non-patriotic. It will not work. Too much is at stake to be put on the defensive. Those are the facts. Ignore them at this country’s peril. There is not a single overt or formerly covert operation that liberals have unqualifiedly supported. Not one! Yes, those are the facts, draw your own conclusions.
Liberals are not the only ones opposed to torture and in favor of humane treatment of captured terrorists. However, the people who orchestrated attacks on civilians in the United States and televised beheadings are not entitled to a day at the beach. One should not be surprised. Progressives have always shown more concern for criminal rights than victims’ rights. There is nothing new here. They saw the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the Cole, etc., as just another criminal event. Why these people are called “progressives” is itself a mystery. They have not had a useful idea in decades. “Regressives” seems more appropriate.
Terrorism is the premier issue of our times and President Bush—inarticulate as he may be—sees it exactly for what it is. There were congressional scandals but rotten eggs were jettisoned, not allowed to tough it out. Disgruntled conservatives upset with spending, border security, illegal immigration and the rest, will rue the day, if they do not support those candidates who understand it is better to have terrorists coalesce and die in Iraq than to provide them leisure time to plan the next attack on an American city, while Democrats subpoena witnesses for impeachment proceedings and discuss strategy with an impotent UN secretariat.
Were mistakes made in Iraq and elsewhere? Of course! That is why it is called “war,” not a board game, not a Playstation cartridge and not a movie. It is a war! And God help America to prevail. Yes, I dare to say that too.