Posted by
Always To The Right on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:36:33 PM
What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during
time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move
down the road?
Just
a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence
Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar intelligence for
the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal majority of
Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members -- reported that
the administration had been wrong in alleging a relationship between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
As Republican Chairman Pat
Roberts made clear, the working majority cherry picked the evidence to
conclude there was no relationship when the weight of the evidence
indicated there was -- going back 10 years, no less. Condoleezza Rice
confirmed that there were always dissenting opinions, but that the
prevailing view among our intelligence agencies was that there was
indeed a relationship.
The committee demonstrated its
absurdity elsewhere, too, when it concluded, preposterously, that
Saddam didn't consider the United States an enemy because he said so
during his debriefing. The committee chose to believe that obvious lie
from a lying, murderous tyrant over his consistently contradictory
statements and behavior over the previous decade.
So we're
paying federal dollars to be told we must ignore our lying eyes and
ears: that we must conveniently forget Saddam's myriad verbal jihads
against the United States because he later made the self-serving
statement that he hadn't considered us an enemy? This is too much. You
might also recall that we fought a war against this maniac in 1991. I
suppose he didn't consider us the enemy then either, or when he shot at
our planes in the no-fly zones.
The same kind of nonsensical analysis has surfaced again this week
through yet another leak from the treasonous New York Times, which
selectively reported that an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate
concluded the Iraq war has exacerbated worldwide terrorism.
Of
course, this little leak wasn't designed to feed into the Democrats'
November election propaganda message, now was it? Surely you've heard
the line many times before: President Bush diverted resources from
capturing Osama bin Laden -- the only terrorist chieftain in the
non-global war on terror -- to pursue his recklessly quixotic vendetta
against Iraq. This unprovoked, preemptive strike on the non-threatening
Saddam has caused Muslims the world over to hate us and swelled the
ranks of terrorism.
When will these tone-deaf people get it
through their heads that Islamic extremists have hated us since before
the flood (figuratively, of course)? When will they comprehend that
Osama attacked us before we attacked Iraq?
Besides, who would
expect that our attack on Iraq would endear us to the enemy? But if Iraq were not a
terrorist-supporting state, why would the terrorists care? Why have
they invested so much of their resources to disrupt the Iraqi freedom
experiment? Why are they trying to foment a civil war there if Iraq has
nothing to do with the global jihad?
More importantly, why
does the left keep dredging this stuff up? The answer is they have no
alternative plan for Iraq and they figure the only way they can make
headway on the national security issue is to continue to paint Bush as
a liar, which brings me to the main point.
Democrats have been
telling us nonstop that President Bush's policies -- his alleged
unilateralism in general, and his attack on Iraq specifically -- have
caused an otherwise loving enemy to hate and wage war against us. If
that's true -- which it isn't -- how much more true is it that the
feelings of the Muslim world (and the European left) toward the United
States have deteriorated as a direct result of the Democrats' constant
lies about President Bush?
If they truly believe our policies
have intensified the hatred of Islamic extremists toward the United
States, then why don't they quit telling the world -- when they know
better -- that President Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about Saddam's
relationship with Al Qaeda? Why don't they quit falsely charging that
it is the covert policy of this administration to torture enemy
combatant detainees at Gitmo? Why don't they quit saying that President
Bush attacked Iraq for its oil?
Easy. They either don't believe
negative world opinion of the United States spawns terrorism as they
claim, or they don't care whether it does or not -- at least they don't
care as much about that as they do regaining political power.