What to do with the news that a terrorist master responsible for the murder of untold numbers of American servicemen and women has been killed? Well, for many Democrats, that was a question that actually required thought before being answered.
No instantaneous rejoicing. No thankfulness that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sent to his maker courtesy of 1,000 pounds of American-made munitions delivered via F-16. No, the first reaction of many Democrats was either worry or disdain. Worry over how to spin a response so that it brings maximum political advantage, and disdain that the U.S. military had a victory on President Bush’s watch. The other reaction was incredulity. Some Democrats believe the whole story was fabricated by the military to distract from the “truth” of Bush’s failure as a President.
Consider the following comments made by actual Democrats:
Am I the only one who thinks this is one big scam on America and the world, to make it look like they “killed a main terrorist” and rid the world of an evil person?”
They said they identified the so called body with his fingerprints, where did they get Zarqawi’s finger prints? I know he was supposedly jailed in Jordan for a while. Do they keep fingerprints on everyone in the world? This news comes as the marriage amendment failed….again Bush’s poll numbers are slipping faster then a speeding nascar. I don’t buy it.”
— “Wahoo,” a poster on Democrats.com
Understandably, there is a lot of media coverage on Zarqawi today. In all the hours and hours of coverage, has anyone mentioned that the President could have killed Zarqawi before the Iraq War but chose not to?
— “Georgia10,” a poster on DailyKos
Zarqawi was quite probably a psy ops job in the first place, so what does that make his “death”?
Keep your eyes on the prize:
— Christopher Day, a poster on DailyKos
I do not believe this al Zarqwai bullsh**, because it is all too convenient. It’s another wave of propaganda from the Bush cabal. He was likely killed years ago, or is still alive. Something smells rotten.
— “Liberalmuse,” a poster on Democratic Underground
Just as the American public begins to look into Haditha, this happens.
I’m going to be interested as to how Bush’s approval rating changes, as well as how long we’ve known where this guy was.
I’d like to think that it was just a coincidence, but it would be valuable to know all the facts.
— “Imagine1989,” a poster on Democratic Underground
One of the most interesting discussions I read was on the Democratic Underground blog. A brave soul posited that it was good that Zarqawi was dead because he was killing American GIs. The poor person was attacked, called brainwashed, was told he was living in fantasyland and was told numerous times to “wake up.”
Now, maybe these folks aren’t representative of other Democrats. So let’s see some who are.
John Kerry, the party’s nominee for president in 2004 (can’t get more representative than that), said, “Our troops have done their job in Iraq, and they’ve done it valiantly. It’s time to work with the new Iraqi government to bring our combat troops home by the end of this year.”
Well, at least he believes Zarqawi (a) existed, and (b) was killed. But did he really say that our job in Iraq was finished? Yep, it’s Miller Time. Mission Accomplished. Amazing. I didn’t realize we’d fought a war for three years to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Democrats have long said that 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq, where the Iraqis take responsibility for their security. The death of al Zarqawi and the naming of the Iraqi Defense and Interior Minister should bring us closer to that goal, and hasten the day when American troops can come home.”
Other top Democrats were more measured, but withdrawal clearly is becoming the Democrat message. Not victory, but withdraw. The No. 1 goal will be to “support the troops, bring them home.” The death of Zarqawi illustrated this quite unmistakably. The Democrats have made getting the troops home the top priority.
Sounds nice, but that is no strategy for victory, it is a strategy for surrender. The Democratic Party’s goal is to end the conflict, not win the conflict, when it should be the other way around.
If the Democrats have their way and bring the troops home before Iraq is secured, then it will mean that all the coalition forces who have died there will have died in vain. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Democrats are striving for exactly that.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.