Saturday, April 28, 2007
This week's dichotomy: Defeatist Liberals vs. Reagan/Republican Vision
This week is a perfect time to contrast he disastrous path the Democrat and defeatist liberals are attempting to lead America; and the vision of success, security, and victory envisioned by Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan's dynamic leadership and foresight to design, build, and deploy an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect our nation, derisively referred to as "Star Wars" by critic's, successfully intercepted and destroyed two incoming missiles this week over the Pacific.
Did you miss the coverage on this truly historic and landmark event? That is hardly surprising given the mainstream media's coverage of the House and Senate passing the Democrat and Chuck Hagel Iraq Defeat Act of 2007 and forwarding it to the waiting veto pen of George W. Bush.
Democrats spent last week trying to sell Americans to support their plan for fighting the war on terror, they continually droned on about a non-existent mandate given them by the voters in November and in polls that are selectively and skewed with ridiculous framing to support their point of view. Their vision? Hand victory in Iraq to the terrorists (pick your favorite flavor of terrorist: Al Qaeda of Iraq, Mahdi Army, Ansar Al Islam) and of course the states in the region that sponsor them, Syria and the soon to join the Nuclear Weapons club; Iran. Their vision provides no hope for anyone in Iraq except our enemies. They call for a "new strategy" and course in Iraq; and ignore the fact and refuse to support the one that is in place now-The Surge. The Iraqi people, only recently given the opportunity for the first time in their lives to taste freedom through voting, writing and ratifying a constitution, have now bravely started a fledgling democracy in a region filled with despots and Islamic fascism. Unfortunately they are at risk to have the very tongues that have tasted that freedom cut out by Islamic radicals who don't want that taste lingering on their tongues and who are determined to impose their will on them. With a set timetable and departure of U.S. forces without regard to Iraq's ability to defend their democratic gains; nothing will stop the carnage that will surely ensue in this vacuum.
Harry Reid and the Democrats have said that Iraq is lost. It is not. Far from it. These latest sensational attacks they cite are suicide and car-bombings. They indicate the exact opposite, they show the enemy is actually losing. They are unable to engage the U.S. or even the Iraq Army and security forces head-to-head as they have in the past. They must resort to these bombings as a result with all the sensational coverage, and of course the mainstream media and defeatist liberals fall lock-step into place with the enemies goal of getting the most propaganda possible from the carnage of these desperate acts. When Japan resorted to Kamikaze attacks in the Mariana's and Philippines during WWII was this a sign of imminent victory on their part? No. It was a last gasp act of desperation for an enemy that had no other course of action left to them. Did Ike and FDR quit the D-day invasion because it was getting too difficult on Omaha beach? The difference between FDR and the Democrats of today is FDR didn't surrender and quit like Harry Reid and Pelosi when the enemy scored a few hits on our carriers. The Democrats simply don't have the political courage, moral fortitude, nor the vision required for victory. This past week Nancy Pelosi skipped a briefing by General David Petraeus on the situation in Iraq. Why? Well perhaps she didn't want to be bothered by the facts of Iraq. I am sure the FACTS he would share like deaths from sectarian violence caused by death squads and militias that had roamed freely before in the now secured areas, dropped by over 500% in just the first month of the "Surge." These kind of facts just don't jive with how she sees Iraq. So, it was probably much better to skip the briefing and stick her fingers in her ears, closing her eyes and repeating over and over "I can't hear you...I can't...laaa laaa deeee deee dahhhh.." just like a child not wanting to hear something they know to be the truth. Certainly Petraeus' briefing and the facts and situational report he would have given don't jive with Democrats strategy to lose this war so they can win the White House. George Bush, and Republicans of principle voted to give the troops the tools, new IED-proof Grizzly armored vehicles (The vehicle funding that Democrats REMOVED from Bush's request and REPLACED with funding for Spinach, Shrimp, Peanuts, etc.) ammunition, training, and reinforcements necessary for our brave men and women fighting for victory in the war on terror. These troops awaiting crucial supplies, equipment, training and reinforcement most certainly know what is at stake. They know the heart of the enemy. They know what Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria have in mind for Iraq and the region when the Democrats hand them our defeat.
Now, lets contrast these Democratic actions last week with the vision and leadership of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans that ensured that his concept for a missile shield nearly 30 years ago, on Thursday of last week enabled the Aegis class cruiser U.S.S. Lake Erie to detect, track, and destroy both a ballistic missile, and low level cruise missile in the same engagement.
When Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative he envisioned a break from the status quo of his liberal, appeasing, defeatist predecessor; Jimmy Carter. He envisioned this weapon system as a way to force the obsolescence of the policy "Mutually Assured Destruction", something he viewed as a perversion to common sense. To rely on an opponents good will and fear that an attack would mean the end was taking control out of our hands for our own defense and preservation and placing it in the hands of someone leading an evil empire. He had the vision to understand that by removing the success of a first strike by an enemy; you win. Furthermore you make offensive weapons impotent and irrelevant. Reagan also understood with the rise of Islamic radicalism in Iran, Lebanon, and the general concept that rogue nations like North Korea, or Iran that ever attained a Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical capability could have the means to strike us or our allies with these weapons launched via ballistic missiles. His vision was of course spot on. If not first for Reagan, George H. Bush, then George W. Bush, and the Republican majority in congress during the 90's protecting it from the Liberal, Democrat, Defeatist, appeasers who fought this program tooth and nail trying to kill, maim or end the program since day one; the U.S. Navy would not have shot down two missiles in Hawaii last week.
Last week illustrates how Reagan and Republican leadership, determination, moral clarity of purpose led to a vision for a project that would be decades in the making. This project even brought about the demise of the Soviet empire which would be validation enough for it's justification, and wisely Republicans had foresight to continue to see a need and to proceed with development to perhaps be called upon to defend the U.S. or it's allies like Israel from a potential nuclear attack. In a final irony, Ronald Reagan and his courageous conviction lives on and protects us today, possibly even from a future attack by Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who only a few years before Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative was guarding and tormenting our Tehran hostages.
Lord help us if these vapid, defeatist, Democrat and Liberal cowards win the White House. Mr. Fred Thompson: we need you now, please get in soon!
Michael R. Bednarz