Lies, Lies and More Lies

As  presidential elections approach, Americans find the country divided in time of war — a war we did not start. This is a time for bipartisan unity according to long-established precedent. The exception to that precedent was the Vietnam War in which the Democrats broke ranks to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off support for our locked in battle against a massive invasion from North Vietnam allies while bringing down the Nixon Administration. It was a strategy for national humiliation and failure, but one that gave the Democrats control of both the White House and the Congress.

Regrettably, we find ourselves again divided in time of war as the Democrats have elected to duplicate their turncoat strategy that brought the nation down to defeat in Vietnam. The Democrats have launched one smear campaign after another to vilify the Bush Administration. The first big lie was that Bush manipulated intelligence to take the nation to war. Joseph Wilson launched the attack in the pages of the New York Times with charges of cooked intelligence. Wilson’s allegations were found to be false, an inconvenience overlooked by the liberal media bent on perpetuating the myth of the “rush to war” based upon false intelligence. In short the myth of the big lie was itself a lie.

The Democrats continue to rely on the big lie. This time the lie is that American troops have been defeated in Iraq. As America defeated its enemies on every battlefield from World War I to our successful battlefield combat in Vietnam, so too America can certainly defeat its enemies in Iraq; but we must stand by our troops in battle. Far from being defeated our forces have demonstrated a succession of victories over the Taliban, over Saddam Hussein, as well as nation building successes based on the formation of new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. So why the lie Harry Reid told about the war being lost? Because the Democrats need defeat. They want to trade defeat and national humiliation for political victory in 2008.

Complicating the situation is the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not understood. Examples of ignorance of the art of war are rife, but one stands out as especially galling to those who have fought: selecting the time and place of battle conveys an important advantage on the commander.

On 9/11 President Bush proclaimed that we would take the war to those who had declared war on America slaughtering thousands of innocent souls in the most brutal assaults ever seen on our soil. Under the leadership of George W. Bush, we have dictated the time and place of battle. Today we are waging the war with the terrorists on their turf — ground they formerly used to train recruits and plan new attacks in the security of rogue states.

Because we chose al Qaeda’s turf as the battlefield, the terrorists have no alternative but to pour men and equipment into the place of battle we have chosen. The result is that the terrorists are unable to carry the war to America. By selecting the battlefield in the enemy base of operations we have placed distance between our people and the battlefield, dramatically limiting al Qaeda’s ability to export violence to America.

Our critics pose as humanitarians, while forecasting doom and ignoring our victories. They tell us that they want to see no more urban combat. Their words demonstrate ignorance. We cannot decide when or where the enemy will choose to stand and fight, but based on his fear to face our troops in battle, we must assume that urban combat is going to be with us for some time. The choice of urban warfare, like the decision to declare war on America, was al Qaeda’s. The real question is do we want the urban combat to be in New York, Chicago, LA, or Baghdad? Retreating in the face of the enemy will signal no end to urban combat. It will signal the start of new campaigns on battlefields selected by the terrorists. And ruthless terrorists will not fight on their home turf, if given a reprieve from our attacks. They will fight in our cities that will become the battlefield, if we break faith with our troops in battle and elect to cut and run.

The critics of the war insist that they are patriotic and that there is no reason to fault their beliefs. Can we accept this at face value, which amounts to denial? When the Democrats ignore our victories and announce that our soldiers have lost, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. The real question is: are we to ignore the actions of faithless critics who aid the enemy and damage the morale of our troops and allies? I think not. There is good reason to reject the misguided words of the critics, who put good for evil and evil for good by cleverly masking their betrayal as patriotism, while they reject faith in our cause and advocate surrender.

The liberal media refuses to publish rebukes of the politicians, who place their political fortunes above the good of the nation . This makes no sense. Americans cannot accept betrayal, while those in rebellion against common sense lead the nation astray. This is the time to remind arrogant politicians, who encourage the enemy, that they demoralize our people, our soldiers and our allies. By advocating retreat they do serious harm to our cause, while success hangs in the balance. Instead of retreat Republicans must rebuke their critics. This is no time to squelch free speech in the name of sensitivity. Far from remaining silent, our duty is to defy the critics plainly speaking the truth without fear of criticism by those who plead for a free pass for traitors, who betray our men and women defending freedom on distant battlefields, thereby shielding our cities from combat by their sacrifices.