Good News in Iraq/Bad News for Dems


It is a sad truism that one of the two major political parties and much of the mainstream media have been, if not actively cheering for the terrorists (although many would argue that they indeed have been), then certainly rooting awfully hard against their own country and troops in the current campaign in Iraq. 

Since the start of the war effort, admittedly bungled in many ways by Bush and Rumsfeld, when it became obvious that things were going south, the Democrats (save Lieberman and Zell Miller) could be counted on to do all they could to undermine and sabotage the enterprise and embarrass the nation and military. 

The words of the Democrat elite, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Jack Murtha, and many others, have been used by our enemies and throughout the Arab and Muslim world as propaganda for the jihadist cause, as indications of the division within American society and lack of political resolve - and were emboldened by them. 

The Islamists looked to the political turmoil and the daily media barrage against Bush and his war and drew hope, inspiration, and support in their struggle against the great Satan.  Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, as advertised endlessly by the Dem/media complex seeking to make political hay, became war cries and recruitment tools for the enemy. 

The unending condemnations of the Patriot Act, telephone surveillance, warrantless wiretaps, "secret" prisons, monitoring of bank transactions, and other measures used to safeguard the country, by the Dem/media/civil rights extremist alliance were pure delight for the IslamoNazis. 

With every suicide bomb, kidnapping, mass killing, and drum beat of American deaths in Iraq, the Dem/media chorus saw not tragedy but political opportunity, as they gleefully watched, cheered, and even encouraged, it seemed, the steady downward spiral and burn of the Iraq project. 

Defeat in Iraq, it seemed, spelled victory for the Dems and so the Dems and media allies became completely and wholeheartedly (save holdout and outcast Lieberman) invested in our defeat.

The American people had turned against the war, Bush's popularity was at an all time low (second, of course, to the Democrat run Congress), and it looked for all the world to see that the Dems could ride the Iraq disaster all the way to the White House in 08 - and planned accordingly. 

But a funny thing happened along the way to the election.  The so called "surge" (bitterly opposed by Dems and some quivering Repubs) began to work.  The number of rocket and mortar attacks, suicide events, roadside bombings, kidnappings, political murders, mass killings, and other calamities, within months of the surge, went down dramatically.

Schools, streets, and markets were returning to life, refugees were coming back home, businesses were opening, people were out and about, nightlife making a comeback, utilities and hospitals and other infrastructure functioning, some semblance of economic and civic life was reestablishing itself, and, for all the world - and media - to see, some sense of normalcy and peace was taking hold, in Baghdad, Anbar and other trouble spots, and throughout all Iraq.   

There was also friendship and peaceful relations breaking out between Sunnis and Shiites and between their respective neighborhoods.  Trade, traffic, and commerce were emerging once more.  Rank and file Shiites were rejecting Al Sadr and his Iranian backed Mahdi army while Sunnis and their tribal leaders were rejecting Al Quaeda and the insurgency and lining up with the government and our military.  The bad actors, terrorists, insurgents, malcontents were being fingered, ingelligence gathering improved, strong holds, hideaways, and weapons caches uncovered, and little by little the violence began to subside. 

Most important, to the horror of the Dems/Media, not only did Iraqi civilian deaths go down, but American deaths have gone down as well.

At first, the silence in the media was deafening.  In fact, reliable as always, they did not just deliberately ignore it but tried to spin it as being insignificant or that it wasn't even happening or that things were still getting worse. But then, little by little, even the anti Bush media could no longer overlook the obvious and so major mainstream outlets began reporting the unhappy turn of events to their fellow countrymen including, amazingly, the NY Times in a recent front page above the fold story.

For the Dems, at first, they continued to trot out the same old lines about civil war, that it could not be won militarily, that political benchmarks were not being met, that a political solution was needed, that the Maliki government was unsatisfactory, about quagmire, about troop reductions and timetables, in other words, surrender - but as the reality of American success in Iraq sunk in, they ... conveniently began to switch topics.

Indeed, it is unlikely that Dems will talk very much about Iraq at all from here on in.  The unhappy prospect of American victory and success has rained on their parade and so they will simply drop the issue and turn to other things, things they actually prefer talking about anyway, like health care, new spending initiatives, and other govt programs - and, the reliable media will cut them a pass. 

Some Dems, like Hillary, may try to play both sides against the middle and make some minor hawkish sounding noises about our military and Iraq.  But Iraq as an issue will simply drop like a rock and domestic issues will take center stage as perhaps they should. 

Unfortunately, for Republicans, because of the gross mismanagement of the war by Bush and the unpopularity of all things associated with him, Iraq will not be an issue for them to run on either. 

They will support the effort of course and anyone of them (save Ron Paul) can be counted on to continue the project responsibly (and, I would guess, far more skillfully than Bush) and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, but because of the hamhandedness of the President, they will not be able to use our success in Iraq to their advantage.  That doesn't mean that they shouldn't hold the Dems accountable for their words and actions in doing their level best to bring about defeat for their country and troops. 

But the war in Iraq, an entirely noble endeavor, has been tainted in the mind of the American public, in large part because of the complementary efforts of the Dems/media (and assisted, again, by the shortcomings of Bush), and only a new face on the scene (ie Giuliani or some other GOP hopeful, perhaps McCain) will be able to resurrect it.

The Democrat party as currently comprised, under the grip of the hard left fringe,  many of its senior leaders anti war, Vietnam era lefties themselves with a jaundiced vision of their own country and military will have to find another issue to run on.  Iraq seems to be off the table, Bush is not running, and, unhappily for Dems, our troop surge and counterterrorist strategy seems to be working.

But some general comments about Dems and Libs in the media and elsewhere. 

The long march of the sixties generation, the antiwar, socialist, aquarian, pacifist, anti American, countercultural, radical contingent of the sixties, through our dominant cultural and political institutions, through the Democratic party, the media, Hollywood, and our schools and universities has been excruciating for the country.  If Hillary runs for the Dems and is defeated (most likely by Giuliani), perhaps, if we are lucky, it will be the last hurrah for that most disastrous decade.

We can only hope.


  • Oscar Hoffman

    December 3, 2007

    Well, wonders never cease, Murtha has actually gone on national TV and said the surge is working, but only after he went there to see for himself. It is easy to be an armchair critic, the very thing at which he excells in.

Add Comment