Democrats: Praying for Failure

By Rachel Marsden | Bio
rachel@politicalusa.com

When al-Qaeda's third in command, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was nabbed in Pakistan last week, it didn't just represent a blow to the terrorist network--it was also a major setback for the Democrats and their agenda.

Mohammed's capture strengthens the Bush administration's argument that the US can conduct the war on terror on various different fronts. Apparently the concept of chewing bubble gum and spitting at the same time is incomprehensible to Democrats like Senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy says he's now speaking out about Bush's policy on Iraq because of "the administration's [willingness] to have a nuclear power on the Korean Peninsula." As though that should preclude or negate any planned military action in Iraq. At a fundraiser in California last Fall, former US President Bill Clinton--following the classless example of fellow Democratic former President, Jimmy Carter--was quick to criticize the sitting President. Clinton said that Bush should focus on taking care of bin Laden before moving on to Iraq. Clearly with the recent capture of terrorist mastermind Mohammed occurring on the eve of inevitable military action in Iraq, the administration has effectively shot down the Democrats' theory that it can't rattle its saber in multiple directions.

This one-dimensional thinking and theorizing on the part of Democrats proves that they are ill-equipped to deal with a new, post-9/11 generation of warfare. On September 11th, 2001, the nature of warfare changed when foreign terrorists infiltrated American society and attacked civilian targets on American soil. As a result, US foreign policy needed to change quickly, boldly and drastically. Sure, al-Qaeda and bin Laden claimed responsibility for these attacks, but the terrorist network--its sources of funding and equipment--extend far beyond the blatantly obvious. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein may not be the best of pals, but they both share a mutual, fanatical hatred for America and the West. Iraq is clearly terrorist-friendly. Hussein has given refuge to al-Qaeda terrorists. A month ago, US Secretary of State Colin Powell connected the dots between Baghdad and terrorists such as al-Qaeda commander Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. Hussei! n has offered large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If Hussein knew that his days were numbered, and he wanted to pass off his cache of deadly weapons to someone who would put them to what he would deem to be "good use," who better to give them to than to bin Laden and his boys?

The Democrats have set themselves up so that if the war in Iraq turns out to be a victorious military campaign, they're in deep trouble. It will be a carbon copy of the political blow they suffered when the Persian Gulf War of the early 1990's was viewed as a success.

Last October, Congress voted unanimously to give Bush unlimited power to strike Iraq, regardless of UN or public opinion. The Democrats were there to debate and approve that resolution. So what has happened since? A little thing called "midterm election blowout" may have changed things. Now it seems that some Democrats are trying way too hard to make themselves into something more than just "Republican-lites."

Bush's popularity has been overwhelming since September 11th, 2001. The Democrats tried to paint the war in Afghanistan as another potential Vietnam--tales and rumours of errant bombs abound. Yet allied casualities were minimal and al-Qaeda has now been flushed out and is on the run. Several key operatives have been killed or captured, and their financing has been cut off or disrupted.

Then the Democrats focused in on allegations that these poor captured al-Qaeda terrorists were being subject to (gasp) military tribunals! The notion of Democrats sanctimoniously cloaking themselves in the same Constitution that they're willing to shred through judicial activism is laughable at best--hypocritical at worst. Isn't it reassuring to know that if the Democrats were in charge, they'd be focused on the rights of your friendly, neighbourhood terrorist? Forget about the fact that any public discussion of evidence gathered against terror suspects could help reveal intelligence sources and intelligence gathering methods, and perhaps undermine ongoing operations. I'm sure the Democrats would also take great pains to ensure that none of the terror suspects' flight lessons or shoe-bomb making classes are interrupted, heaven forbid.

The Democrats are playing political Russian Roulette in criticizing Bush's Iraq plans, but they have nothing to lose. They don't have control of either the House or the Senate, and they don't appear to have any kind of agenda of their own aside from criticizing Bush. If this war goes well, then they'll really be in deep trouble. They're like the guy in Contestant's Row on the "Price Is Right" who bids $1 on the Showcase after everyone else has placed their bets, because he figures there's a chance that everyone else just may have overbid. His success is determined solely by the failure of others. This buck-bidding knob is clearly a Democrat.

Prior to Bush's press conference this week, media reports speculated that the President was going to use the opportunity to announce the capture of bin Laden. Just think what kind of a nightmare that would have been for the Democrats! They have everything riding on Bush failing both with the situation in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Anything short of a regime change in Iraq, with minimal US and allied casualties in the process, will be deemed a failure. Meanwhile, "Dubya" has his earmuffs on and his sword drawn. It's up to him now not to fall on it and impale himself.

Back to column

PoliticalUSA.com Home