Monday, October 02, 2006
Way back when, far far in the past the Iraq war was supposed to be the wave the Democrats were riding to take over Washington. They dropped it like a hot potato when they decided that a better strategy was to try to convince the citizenry that ALL Republicans are pedophiles. At least it keeps them from having to ever tell us what they would do if they got power back. By the way the distant past I speak of was last week. David Limbaugh takes us back to last week when the Democrats pretended to care about Iraq.
The November elections are fast approaching, and we still don't have the faintest idea what the Democrats would do in Iraq. That's because they have no earthly idea and certainly no consensus. That's why we should call their bluff and make this the issue of the campaign and debate it every day.
For purposes of argument let's assume as true their debatable allegation that attacking Iraq has set us back in the war on terror because terrorists have used it as a recruiting tool. How should we use this information constructively?
We first have to ask why our attack has driven terrorist recruitment. The antiwar left's unspoken insinuation is that our attack was immoral, perhaps even criminal, and terrorists, being morally sensitive creatures, are justifiably outraged at our alleged neoconservative imperialism.
Without question, Democrats have been trying to paint America's invasion of Iraq as criminal. How else can we interpret their endless allegations that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 to fabricate an excuse for war?