Thursday, November 17, 2005

Democrats: The Fourth-and-a-Half Column

What the heck is a “fourth-and-a-half” column, you ask? Well, Merriam-Webster Online defines a fifth column as “noun: a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engages in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders”. I deducted half-a-point from the Democrats because they don’t operate in secret. Quite the contrary, the publicly tout their sabotage of the war effort as something for which they should be lionized.

I got to thinking about this as I was reading Andrew McCarthy’s essay on the Senate’s deplorable decision to undermine the war effort by granting to federal judges the power to determine who is and who is not an “enemy combatant”. (See my last post for a link to Mr. McCarthy’s excellent essay.)

I started to think that the situation which obtains in Congress today bears almost no resemblance to our nation’s experience during WWII or Korea. I suspect the beginnings of the fourth-and-a-half column are to be found during the Vietnam War.

The actions of the so-called “loyal opposition” are beyond the pale. They constitute, in my opinion, a calculated effort to sabotage the war effort. And need I remind you that most of the Democrats voted to authorize this war. Plenty of columnists have written on the effort of weasel-like Democrats to lie about why they voted for the war. For good dissections of this behavior see Jonah Goldberg’s “Speak, (Selective) Memory” or Rich Lowry’s “The Gullible Party”.

What we see now are Democrats (and a few RINOs) who hate President Bush so much that they are willing to risk our security to discredit him and damage his effectiveness. How else to explain the efforts of Senators to tie the hands of intelligence operators trying to gain valuable information from captured enemy combatants (Sen. McCain’s anti-torture legislation)? Does Senator McCain think harsh language will do the trick? Is he that stupid or merely obtuse? Can he not see that without any coercive measures at interrogators’ disposal detainees will merely remain silent? How else to explain Senator Carl Levin’s efforts to extend to non-American enemy combatants the protections of our courts?

How else do you explain the phenomenon of hundreds of Left wing lawyers descending on Guantanamo Bay to represent people who would likely happily kill them if they had the chance? These parasites spend their [otherwise normally valuable] time filing nuisance lawsuits demanding high-speed internet access and DVDs among other spurious claims. No matter how ridiculous, such filings must be answered by the intelligence agencies. Time which, presumably, could be better spent interrogating the detainees so that our military can find their still at-large and still breathing comrades and, hopefully, kill them.

What about the behavior of the media? This has been so well-documented that I won’t take up too much space rehashing old news (pardon the pun). The media’s hostility to the conservative movement in general, President Bush in particular, and especially the War in Iraq is patent.

But, you know something? At least they are consistent. They’ve always been against conservatives, this President and the war. Democrat representatives and senators are the most reprehensible as they twist their words and logic trying to explain why they voted the way they did. To add to John Kerry’s ridiculous “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” we can now add a new leader in the weasel sweepstakes.

I am referring here to Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat from West Virginia, who recently announced to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he thought his vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the war meant that George Bush would try to gain the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Good Lord! Did he even read the resolution before he voted on it?

In addition, he revealed that he traveled to the Middle East in January of 2002. His purpose on this visit was to brief the leaders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on what he was sure would be the upcoming war in Iraq. Am I the only one who gasped upon reading this revelation? This man is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for Pete’s sake. I think one could easily make an argument that this behavior constitutes treason.

And, yet, Senate Democrats think that George Bush is the one who should be put on trial.

3 comments:

Dad said...

The fact that Democrats supported the call to war does not marry them inexorably to that position, especially since the claim that Hussein possessed WMDs has now been refuted. Recently, NSC Director Stephen Hadley admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

I think it is fair for any party to criticize the other if things are not working out and there appears no end in sight. I think it is safe to say that both parties engage in fruitless and useless bickering, while most of the electorate are uninterested. And the latter is the saddest aspect.

Alain DeWitt said...

Dad,

Sorry to have to lay the smack down on you, but I can easily do so with three points.

First, it was the United States' policy to change the regime in Iraq. It was a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998 that made it the official policy of the United States to change the regime in Iraq.

I think it is admirable that George Bush decided to do something rather than dither.

Second, prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom, every Democrat of any stature agreed that Saddam Hussein (a) was a threat and (b) was trying to develop WMDs.

Question: how do we know that is not the case?

Answer: George Bush took Bill Clinton and all the Democrats at their word (see point one) and went and destroyed his regime thereby allowing our forces to go into Iraq and know for sure that his WMD program was not as advanced as we had feared.

Third, and I have made this point to you several times, but here goes again: WMDs were just *ONE* of 23 articles in the resolution authorizing war in Iraq. Didn't any of these guys read the resolution?

Also, consider this: if President Bush hadn't had tried to enlist the support of the UN Security Council prior to the war (which was an effort to mollify Democrats) we might have found more evidence of WMDs. Both Kenneth Pollack and David Kay think that elements of Saddam Hussein's WMD program were spririted across the border to Syria.

Lastly, and you get this one for free, please tell me you don't believe the mealy-mouthed statements of the likes of Jay "I Thought He Was Going To Get A Security Council Resolution" Rockefeller and John "I Actually Voted for It before I Voted Against It" Kerry.

These are principled changes in positions? I know you know better.

Dad said...

As usual, you make excellent points. I honestly think you missed a calling somewhere else.

While it may have been U.S. policy to oust Hussein, I think it was "tongue in cheek." Now that may be dithering, but I would rather have done that than invade Iraq and own it. With the "no fly" zone, we essentially controlled Iraq, which after the 1990 Gulf War, was a shell of what it had been militarily. Honestly, I thought Saddam's army before the Gulf War was going to be a pushover.

As for principled politicians, I don't know any. They are simply politicians, some perpetually running for office, who will do anything to remain in office. And look at the likes of the electorate, some of which you saw in the clip I sent you a bit ago.