President Bush’s decision to preemptively attack Iraq is proving to be an unmitigated success. Though the going has been much more difficult than anyone envisioned and the cost painfully high, winning in Iraq has tipped the war on terror in our favor. Iraq will never be a haven for terrorists or supply our enemies with weapons capable of mass-murder. Al Qaeda foolishly gambled on an all-or-nothing struggle with America in Iraq, resulting in the decimation of its ranks and depletion of its credibility. Al Qaeda was ruthless toward Iraqis, slaughtering men, women and children by the thousands, leading directly to the Great Awakening of Iraq’s citizens. Thanks to al Qaeda, the Iraqis now know who the real enemy is, and it ain’t us! Unless the Democrats screw things up, victory in Iraq will be the end of the beginning – to borrow from Churchill – a decisive first-phase victory putting terrorists permanently on the run.
Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist-inspired event has occurred on American soil, though we know many were planned and thwarted. Iraq has elected its own government, ratified its own constitution, and is making verifiable progress in becoming self-securing. Terrorist leaders have but three places on earth to hide: parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iran. Increasingly isolated, only the desperately fanatical will continue the struggle, remaining a formidable threat to be sure, but effectively defanged by American, NATO, and allied nation’s pressure. Remaining on offense is the surest way to safeguard Americans and peace-loving people everywhere. George W. Bush has accomplished all this, feats the Democrats must sully in order to survive.
These verities are like kidney stones to liberals, inflicting sharp pains of discomfort coincidentally fulfilling the phrase, “The truth hurts.” Having invested so heavily in America’s defeat in Iraq, Democrats strive every day to create the illusion that attacking Iraq was disastrously wrong for America. Because the facts don’t support that thesis, Democrats and their liberal media allies repeatedly invent arguments against the war and President Bush in a scandalous attempt at ill-gotten political gain. For instance:
The left hysterically claims President Bush “lied us into the war” by manipulating intelligence and “knowingly propagating falsehoods.” Variations of this lie have reverberated through the mainstream media for a full five years, causing some Americans to accept ”Bush lied” as received truth on a par with “the sun is hot.” There is only one small problem. “In 2004,” writes James Kirchick in today’s Los Angeles Times, “the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously [for residents on West Palm Beach, "unanimous" means "everyone," including all of the Democrats too] approved a report acknowledging that it ‘did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments.’ The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found ’no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.’” Of course, that doesn’t stop Hillary Clinton and a host of other Democrats from shamelessly explaining their vote for war in 2003 on the basis of, in Hillary’s words, “…this president, who misled this country and this Congress.”
In the face of undeniable progress in Iraq since the surge of 2007, opponents of the war and President Bush have had to become increasingly resourceful lest they be perceived as the anti-American buffoons they are. Senator Jim Webb hit upon what he believed was a winning formula, perhaps earning himself a spot on November’s Democratic ticket: THE SOLDIER AS VICTIM. I have to admit, it’s a brilliant device sure to burrow deep into receptive soil in the whining sub-culture that is today’s Democratic Party. The soldier’s deployments are too long, their rest and recovery times too short, and the care of the wounded is, well, abominable is the only word that will do. Our troops had sub-par equipment going into this war, and experience all manner of trauma trying to adjust to the real world once their tours are completed. We have been told Iraq War veterans are less able to attend college than their World War II counterparts — this canard is offered as one excuse for a modern-day G.I. Bill — despite enormous enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses unheard of prior to the all-volunteer army. Now we are told that suicide rates among American troops have spiked upward, along with homicide rates among returning Iraq War veterans. I tell ya’, it’s a web of lies.
American military personnel are the best equipped on earth, period. Just ask the enemy. Our troops are supported by the best battlefield-ready medical teams available, and survival rates of grievously wounded soldiers and marines has never been higher. Simply enlisting for the first time can bring a handsome financial reward. Military.com lists these gems: “This year, for example, the average bonus was up to about $15,000, but some run as high as $40,000, the maximum allowed by Congress.” There’s more. “The Active First Program offers Guard recruits who commit to 30, 36 or 48 months’ active duty in certain jobs…Active First features enlistment bonuses of up to $60,000.” Re-enlistment bonuses for the highly skilled can be eye-popping: “Airmen who meet requirements may qualify for a retention bonus of up to $150,000.”
The recruits earn their money, and our respect. But the left’s claim of post-service impoverishment is fantasy, as is the much ballyhooed suicide and homicide rates. The simple truth, exposed by Thomas Sowell over the weekend, is that “this higher suicide rate [for military personnel] is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.” And the charge that soldiers returning from Iraq have high homicide rates is even less credible. “The New York Post,” writes Sowell, “showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.” Another kidney stone hits the road.
These are hard times for liberals. The Democrats are about to nominate a neophyte Senator fully capable of losing an election the Dems should easily bag. Iraq is rapidly becoming a good-news-every-day story. The economy is still growing and is likely to avoid even a slight recession. What’s a Democrat to do? They’ll do what they’ve done for 5 years: say “times are tough, Americans can’t make it on their own, big government is the answer, the earth is warming, the sky is falling,” all the while hoping for a hurricane and defeat in Iraq.
O pathos, for the liberal, thou dost lurk behind every tree.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Campaign 2008, Media, Video, War in Iraq