DISPARATE DESPARATION
Re: George Neumayr's Desperate
for Defeat:
The Democrats would prefer to fight the War on American soil
instead of Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian, and Iranian. They have forgotten
about the over 3,000 dead American citizens. Power is what they
covet more than anything.
-- D. Doran
Why all the pussyfooting around, George? Simply state it as follows:
"The Democrats want a society based on a socialist/communist philosophy of equality of outcome and expect the U.S. military to follow those same beliefs. No winners. No losers. Being a loser may instill feelings of inadequacy. All are equal. Except Americans. Americans are to carry the mark of Cain. And be a scapegoat for any and every society's failure."
Sort of like an eleventh commandment. Except that calling it a
commandment smacks too much of religion. Or mentioning the mark of
Cain or scapegoating. That would violate the rules on separation of
church and state.
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Mr. Neumayr offers an insightful assessment of the weird fetish for failure currently afflicting many liberals. That fetish is largely a function of poll-worship, at the expense of principle. I do disagree with Mr. Neumayr's idea that Democrats are inherently against America's superpower status. Should Democrats ever control all three branches of government, you can be sure unilateralism would no longer be a dirty word to them. Fortunately, the prospect of liberal ascension is several ice-ages away.
Aside from that, there is an important lesson here. The Democrats (with rare exception) have shown a willingness, if not a will, to see Iraq descend into a black hole from which democracy could never emerge, in order to damage Bush. They seemingly have made the political calculation that delivering a victory to Islamic fascism is preferable to Bush leading a successful effort in bringing democracy and human rights to millions in a tortured region. I won't go so far as to call their actions unpatriotic, but they certainly are stupid and disgraceful. Every time an elected representative tells the waiting cameras how wrong, how misled, how illegitimate, how futile America's effort is, he has just given heart to heartless killers. When common purpose and resolve is required, liberals instead offer defeatist gibberish. Talk about breeding terrorism.
The Democrats are now so heavily invested in their own left-wing
disinformation campaign (i.e., Bush lied, Iraq is a quagmire,
unwinnable, no WMD, the war is illegitimate, the world hates us,
ad nauseam) that they have put themselves in the
unenviable position of being advocates of failure. A successful
outcome in Iraq will discredit the Bush-haters and vindicate Bush.
This dilemma leaves the Democrats in a political no-man's-land,
stuck between Iraq and a hard place.
-- GnuCarSmell
Jacksonville, Texas
Your article sounds so much like 1968, when the Vietnam hawks were saying the same lame line. We don't win this type of war -- we just put dictators back in office to do our whim. We are not afraid that America is winning, or might win. We are certain that we cannot win; that we were lied to about getting into the war; that we had no plan once we got there; that we have no plan to get out; and that we cannot justify staying there, letting our armed forces slowly die. Just as sure that you think we're going to win, we are certain that we will not win.
Arabs don't have a very good history of democracy. They tend to kill each other and others who don't agree with them. From these good people we received the word "assassin." Their religion and culture don't allow for democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or women's rights, let alone freedom of religion.
Remember, these good people in Iraq might object to getting
themselves blown up, but don't have a problem with Americans,
Brits, French or Jews being slaughtered. Not a bit of a problem. So
what... are we still doing there? Time to get out.
-- Dan Robbins
Richmond, Virginia
Since Carter's administration, the Democrat party platform has consistently been "Peace through weakness." They should carry that banner throughout their conventions. The other banner for the Democrat/Socialists (as you so aptly identify) is "Play to tie not to win."
I have four of my young adults (they once were called my
children) serving in the armed forces. Three of them are in Iraq.
They play to win (and the numerous times they have beat me at chess
confirms this).
-- Fred Edwards
Tucson, Arizona
I agree completely. I think their fear in Iraq is not just that the U.S. might win, but that a conservative (at least semi-conservative) would lead the victory. It would be even worse if it leads to a radical restructuring of the Middle East.
That means when the liberals regain control, the U.S. will have an institutional memory of how to deal with terrorists AND WIN. So when (not if!) terrorists strike again most of the U.S. will expect the libs to take decisive Bush-like action. When the libs wuss out, voters will stage another 1994-type rout.