Politics make strange alliances, doesn't it? During the previous administration we watched Hillary and Newt Gingrich team up for adoption issues. We've watched Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush team up to work on global issues. We've noticed Bob Dole and Donna Shalala co-chair a working group on veteran's issues. Teams consisting of policy people representing opposite ends of the political arch working together.
Since the events of 9/11/01, the single most important issue to me in politics today is national security. The way I see it, without national security, nothing else matters. By nature, I'm not an alarmist. I am normally quite a cynical human being. But I have less and less patience for those in our population with absolutely no clue about the dangers before our very existence. Let's just talk, let's just use diplomacy, they say. It's ridiculous.
This morning I watched a re-run of an extensive interview with Christopher Hitchens on C-SPAN. Unfortunately I missed the first two hours, the third and final hour was in play as I tuned in. Hitchens is a journalist and an author. He's a Brit by birth and an American citizen by choice. He possesses a brilliant mind. And that upper crust British accent is pleasant to the ear. Before 9/11, I enjoyed listening to him and his ideas but rarely agreed with his politics. He was good for bringing another point of view into a debate of ideas. He was a Socialist but a student of Trotsky, not Stalin.
The same applied to Senator Joe Lieberman. Pleasant enough man. Sincere in his beliefs. Very liberal voting record. I agreed with almost nothing, except his pro choice stance and support of the military.
So, what happened? Thousands of Americans died one day on our own soil at the hands of Islamofacist terrorists, hell bent to change our world. Both of these men joined with President Bush, not out of political loyalty, but for the sake of the country. That can not be said for many on the Democrat side.
What did the recent bin Laden tape released yesterday sound like to you? Other than the ramblings of an insane man, of course. It sounded like it had been written by the Democrat National Committee. Like Howard Dean was doing the usual song and dance. bin Laden did, however, chastise the Dems for not doing anything to end the war or impeach Bush. It is a pathetic place this country has gotten to when the enemy is parroting the words of the President's opposition party.
This didn't happen in World War II. Those of the greatest generation chose to resign their positions of power when they disagreed with FDR. Remember, Joe Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship to the Court of St. James rather than support our involvement in WWII. Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy gets his stance as a surrender monkey honestly. He's daddy's boy. Joe Kennedy was a Jew hater and had no problem knowing they were being victims of genocide at the hands of Hitler. Defend democracy and freedom? Not if things get tough. Just run like a shaved weasel. The enemy today not only wants to kill Jews, but all of us who are not the right form of believer for them.
I read a good editorial at WSJ.com, Opinion Journal, yesterday. In 'The Measure of Progress', the subject was the upcoming Petraeus report. The Dems are labeling it the Bush report. They think we are too sound asleep to know the law was written that the White House would write the report after getting the General's report and that of Ambassador Crocker's. The Dems, in full surrender monkey form, are trying to get out in front of the General's testimony, scheduled for 9/11, by the way by the defeatists for added theatre, and they are only talking of the failures to meet some of the bench marks. The report by the GAO given last week to Congress, delivered by anti-Bush hack David Walker, stressed the list of 18 benchmarks, of which only 7 have seen success. The article notes the report is more like a list. There is no in depth analysis or reasoning given. Just a one page check list.
The success of the surge, so far, is downplayed to the point of brushing it aside. "In some other war, under some other Administration, all this would be cause for bipartisan rejoicing. So leave it to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pounce on the Congressional report, written by the Government Accountability Office, to salvage the bad news from the good."
"The larger danger lies in focusing too much on the lack of political progress or allowing it to become an alibi for withdrawal. The Iraqi leaders whom Mr. Reid so cheaply denigrates in his speeches have all risked their lives for the sake of a free country. The U.S. can help them best by providing a more secure environment in which tough political decisions can be made."
"That's why Mr. Bush was right when he said he would only begin to withdraw troops "from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." Nobody wants U.S. troops to remain in Iraq forever, but neither is it in any one's interests to see another humiliating American withdrawal. Given the evidence of the last six months, that need not happen, and Washington's wavering politicians have no higher responsibility than to ensure it does not."
Running, hiding, ignoring, dismissing the threat of terrorism as a bumper sticker slogan, is short sighted and the height of ignorance in today's world. That dumb President Bush gets it. Those opposing him get it, too, they just have decided to put politics above country.