Deadly Dirty Politics
and Republicans at War
Written by JB Williams
The Bush administration confronted two wars on September 11, 2001; the globally
expanding war against international terrorism abroad, and the political war for
control of U.S.
domestic and foreign policy at home. Bush and Republicans have
ďgone-it-aloneĒ in the war on international terrorism, not without
international support, but without the support or help of U.S. Democrats. Meanwhile,
Democrats successfully used the war on terror to wage war against Bush.
The Bush administration has since been trapped between two equally
devoted enemies, unable to fully engage either enemy without providing target
of opportunity to the other. On one front, Bush confronts international
terrorists and runaway rogue regimes committed to destroying the west and on
the other front, Democrats using the war on terror as a tool to regain
political power at any cost. Bush can win one, but not both.
As a result, Bush finds himself standing almost alone in the now
unpopular war against international terrorism. Democrats succeeded in regaining
illusive political power by working around the clock to make that war and Bush
unpopular. Yet Bush appears to remain committed to winning the war on terror,
no matter how unpopular that might be.
In his January 10th address to the nation (and world) on Iraq,
he announced yet another unpopular plan to increase troops in Iraq,
as his enemy across the political aisle angled to undermine any potential
benefit from such a move. This is not a new practice, but one Democrats have
A few months after 9/11 and a full year before Bush announced his plan
to depose the Hussein regime in Iraq, Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller traveled
to the Middle East, acting on his own, to warn Iraq through its friends in the
region, that America was going to depose the Hussein regime on the basis of
their 17 broken UN resolutions and continued pursuit of WMD.
(See What Americans MUST Know
About the Incoming Senate Intelligence Chairman)
Over the months and years that followed, Democrats
publicly warned our international enemies of Americaís
counter-terrorism surveillance, interrogation and detention programs. Democrats
repeatedly disclosed TOP SECTRET national security information (under the guise
of the peopleís right to know, which has never before included TOP SECRET
security operations during a time of war). Democrats repeatedly worked to
demoralize our troops and embolden our enemy by ďoutingĒ our battle
plans and making outlandish attacks on our military personnel while demanding
civil rights for terrorists devoted to killing an open ended number of innocent
civilians around the globe. Now they have the power to do even worse.
Today, in control of both houses of congress, which means, at the helm
of every national committee including military and intelligence oversight,
Democrats strategically maneuver to finish off Bush and his war on terror by
undermining and under-funding that war effort at every opportunity.
The war on international terrorism is a war the west can not afford to
lose. The west can not win this war amidst an American defeat. Yet we are on a
course to defeat by Democrat design now and hope of victory is dwindling by the
moment, as Democrats move to retreat.
We are not short on opinions as to why we are in danger of losing the
war against international terrorism, in Iraq
or elsewhere. But there is only one real reason why we will lose this war.
As the results of the Ď06í mid-term elections demonstrate, more
than half of the American people are not in the least committed to winning that
war and now, congress is not committed to winning it either. Bush stands alone!
Few debate the immense cost of losing this war. But the mindless
efforts to negotiate the cost of winning the war make ultimate defeat almost a
As if we didnít already know it, war is never popular. Daily
scenes of death and destruction on our TV screens are never embraced by the
people. Daily body counts of our best and brightest are never welcome. The cost
of war is always high, as is the cost of freedom and security. Yet the cost of
losing is even higher.
The morning after Bushís speech regarding a troop surge in Iraq,
international news agency Reuters points out ďBush defies
public opinion, Democrats on Iraq troops.Ē According to Democrats, he
also defied the advice of military experts charged with prosecuting the war
effort. Yet weeks ago, during the Ď06í campaign season, these same
Democrats were stating that Bush ignored those same experts request for more
troops in Iraq.
Which is true? Both statements canít be true?
The question Americans need to answer is, can we afford to lose in Iraq
or anywhere else we are prosecuting the war on international terrorism? If the
answer to this question is no, then we can not afford to continue negotiating
the cost of winning. If the answer is yes, then Democrats are right and we
should withdraw and retreat from the war immediately, saving as many of our
soldiers as possible at the earliest possible date.
What we can not continue to do is sit anywhere in between! We can not
continue to play political games with this war at the expense of American
soldiers. We are either in it to win, or we need to get out of it all together!
Should Bush send more troops? Iím not a military expert, nor am I
on the ground in Iraq
to fully assess the situation. I learned long ago not to trust the lamestream
press on the topic, who enjoys a lower approval rating than Bush these days, as
a result of their continuous slanted reporting.
Is 20,000 more enough? I donít know. But what I do know is this -
if we think we need 20,000 more to win this war, we should send 50,000 more!
Not sit around talking about not funding the mission in some insane and
demoralizing display of politically motivated opposition.
If Democrats were truly committed to winning the war on terror, or
truly supported our troops charged with winning it, they would not have spent
the last five years undermining that effort by constantly attacking every part
of that mission.
Iím not a politician. Iím not running for office. I
donít need your money or your vote and I donít care how unpopular
my opinions might be. I only care that America
win the war against international terrorism on every front where we confront
If winning is what we want, then we can not continue to negotiate the
cost of winning. If not, then there will be no negotiating the cost of failure
Though Democrats claim they represent Americaís
wishes, they certainly donít represent mine. At best, they represent half
of America, the
cut-n-run half, which places them at equal status with Bush who represents the
other half of America,
willing to win at any cost.
Article II of the Constitution gives the President alone, the
Commander-in-Chief, both the right and the responsibility to prosecute war.
Though Senator Kennedy, John Kerry, Speaker Pelosi or Senate Leader Reid, might
see themselves as Commander-in-Chief, they are not.
Bush alone must make the decisions that will either win or lose this
war and Bush alone will be recorded in history as the Commander-in-Chief who
won or lost. What a shame that he must fight US Democrats every step of the way
in his relentless effort to defend the American people from the next 9/11!