Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Democrats - The Party Of Traitors

The current brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh and his "phony soldiers" comment brings up an interesting point. What if his comment was meant exactly the way liberals are claiming?

"Why," Dems sputter, "John Kerry, John Murtha, Jim Webb, and Tom Harkin are war heroes!" Yeah? So was Benedict Arnold. His role at the Battle of Saratoga ensured a victory that brought France into the war and secured independence from the British. But Arnold's greed, ambition and ego later led him to betray his comrades-in-arms.

Based on a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Arnold would have been right at home in the modern Democratic Party.

The question asked of respondents was "Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States loses the war in Iraq?"

Note, the pollsters did NOT ask "Do you think the world would be better off if the U.S implemented a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq?" or "Do you think the world would be better off if Iraq were partitioned?" No, it specifically stated "lost," with all the despair, destruction, disruption, dishonor and death that accompanies losing a war.

A stunning 19% of Democrats responded "Yes." Finally, we can cut through all the "Support the Troops, Not the War" crap. Desiring defeat and humiliation is not supporting the troops in any possible scenario.

Chris Adamo wrote in 2006:
Having vacillated continually on the terror war issue for the past five years, they saw their electoral fortunes ebb. Now, in a desperate effort to reclaim dominant status inside the Beltway that they believe to be inherently theirs, they are again on the attack. But their attack is no less directed at the heartland of America than are the attacks of the Islamists.

Every whisper of wrongful action by the U.S. military is greeted with a mix of jubilation and enthusiastic condemnation by leftists on Capitol Hill and the nightly news. Concurrently, the upbeat stories of progress and improvement in the stability of post-Hussein Iraq invariably generate skepticism and disparagement.

The President's recent visit to Iraq, itself a great milestone on the road to total victory in that theater of the terror war, was nonetheless demeaned in every possible manner by the liberal establishment.

Just as al Zarqawi's memos and communications indicated that the tone inside al Qaeda is getting desperate in the face of imminent defeat, so do the derisive reaction from the left to every bit of good news out of Iraq prove that liberals are becoming similarly desperate.

Their loyalties plainly do not lie with the well being of this nation. Nor can they legitimately claim any noble or patriotic motivation for continuing their campaign of declaring doom and defeat for this country.

For those on the left, every contest is solely determined only from the perspective of political gain or loss to the cause of liberalism. And time and again, the proponents of this sordid political strategy have proven themselves to be wholly indifferent to any negative consequences reaped by the nation or its military. Such behavior does not fit any definition of "loyalty."

Moreover, it is indefensible to assert that, owing to their veteran status, all criticism of anti-war mouthpieces John Kerry or John Murtha, and the political class they represent, should be censored.

Although these are among the best examples liberals are able to present as "war heroes," any actual heroic deeds that might have been perpetrated by Kerry and Murtha occurred more than three decades ago. And particularly in Kerry's case, the validity of such deeds is extremely dubious.

Military commendations and service awards are ultimately meant as tribute to the events of a particular period in time. Often, they represent a single episode in the life of the recipient. They were never intended as a license of lifetime immunity from criticism for any and every outlandish behavior on the part of the bearer, including de facto collaboration with the enemy.

Kerry and Murtha's strategically disastrous demands that America cut and run from the terrorist insurgency at a time when it is desperately attempting to rally its dwindling forces, belie something that is hardly less than a dark alliance between the terrorists and the American left.
After Arnold had switched sides, he captured an American officer. "What would be my fate if I should be taken prisoner by the Americans?" he asked the prisoner. "They will cut off that leg of yours wounded at Quebec and Saratoga and bury it with all the honors of war. Then they will hang the rest of you on a gallows!," replied the officer. On the Saratoga battlefield today, at the spot where Arnold was shot in the leg, there is a small statue of a leg with no name.

What body part of Kerry or Murtha will we immortalize? The hindquarters?

No comments: