Friday, December 01, 2006


Vasko Kohlmayer, writing in the World Defense Review makes this startling observation:
In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

-They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
-They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
-They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
-They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
-They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
-They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
-They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
-They have impugned and demeaned our military
-They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
-They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
-They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
-They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?By effectively becoming a political arm of our sworn enemy, the Democratic Party has staked out a position that is unparalleled in our country's history

Kohlmayer suggests that the inability to grasp the motives of the Democrats, sprurred on by their leftist base, has made Americans reluctant to believe in their essential treachery.

That's all very well and good; and I applaud Americans who are so fair-minded, but from a psychological perspective, their motives are not at all hard to understand. Just hard to believe.

The Democratic Party leadership is in thrall to the lunatic left, and like the terrorists they support, the political left these days makes no bones about their agenda. They are completely upfront about it, in fact.

If you have doubts about this, take James Taranto's quiz. It's a tough one.

The Democratic Party is no longer on the side of America. They are no longer on the side of freedom. It is time that the American public begin to appreciate what is so very obvious to the enemies we are fighting.

And before the trolls deride these remarks and cry foul, they should first take a long hard look at the list Kohlmayer has above. Is it just a coincidence that the left's rhetoric sounds remarkably like Ahmadinejad? Some cosmic joke, perhaps? Or (now this is the tough question) is it that the beliefs and agenda that you so mindlessly support has merged with those whose only goal is the destruction of America and its values?

Charles Krauthammer this morning has an excellent post that should be read by all you "reality-based" realists:
Now that the "realists'' have ridden into town gleefully consigning the Bush doctrine to the ash heap of history, everyone has discovered the notion of interests, as if it were some new idea thought up by James Baker and the Iraq Study Group.

What do people think we've been doing for the last five years? True, the president's rhetoric has a tendency to go soaringly Wilsonian, e.g. the banishing tyranny stuff in his second inaugural address. But our policies of democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon have been deeply rooted in the most concrete of American interests.

If we really had been in the grip of "idealism,'' we'd be deep in Chad and Burma and Darfur. We are not. We are instead trying to sustain fragile democracies in three strategically important countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon -- that form the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.

We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there. Deposing Saddam & Sons was essential because they posed a permanent strategic threat to the region and to U.S. interests....

Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq -- which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.

Supporting liberty and the development of free societies in the middle east is not a utopian fantasy or even a Wilsonian dream--but a reasonable policy and expression of our national values AND national interests. September 11th taught us that we can no longer ignore the tyranny and fanaticism that deliberately brought death and destruction to our shores and declared war on everything our country stands for.

Consider this: we could have (and still can) completely obliterate the entire problem with the use of overwhelming force that is at our disposal. There are some who argue that is precisely what we should do; and that our primary target should be the source of Islamic totalitarianism since 1979. I don't even necessarily disagree with this approach. (hat tip: ARationalHuman).

But, as I discussed in this post the strategic question of our time is whether or not Islam itself--not just the Islamic totalitarians who have taken over that religion--is compatible with freedom and free societies. President Bush has bet everything on the idea that it is, and that democratic reform can salvage that beleaguered religion and prevent the incredible loss of life that answering "No" to the question will entail.

In contemplating these pieces of a larger puzzle, it strikes me that more and more people (from the conservatives who now question the value of the Iraq war; to the ordinary citizens who are fed up with the antics of flying imams and the islmaophobic accusations of CAIR; to independents like myself who have resolutely supported President Bush) are beginning to inch slowly toward a negative answer to the strategic question. While many muslims are decent, tolerant and yearn to be free; Islam itself does not appear to be compatible with a free society. This ultimate conclusion is breathtaking--and heartbreaking-- in its implications. And if you doubt the seriousness in which I say this, revisit this post. And, if you have not read this post from September, 2003 from The Belmont Club, then you should do so.

I wrote:
It may eventually be the case that the West becomes convinced that Islam is unable to change and is completely incompatible with freedom. We are well on our way to that eventuality, sadly. Time and again there have been opportunities for the moderates in the religion to pull it back from its suicidal historical course.

Personally, I am not convinced that Islam can change, but I hope it can, given time.

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza are acting in ways that will facilitate a confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy actually represents the Best. Possible. Hope. For. Peace.
It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.

It is surely possible that I place too great a hope in the idea of freedom; or that I have unrealistic expectations of how much time is needed for its moderating effects to be realized. My primary concern has always been to minimize the loss of life--our own and those who yearn for freedom but who are in the grip of Islamic totalitarianism; and the only option that seemed to me to do that was the Bush Doctrine. But there has always been the possibility that it would not work in time, implemented some 30 years too late.

SC&A have this to say:
Freedom supports righteousness and make the world a more civilized and moral place. Notwithstanding the reality that much of the world doesn’t care about those ideals, that truth about freedom is unassailable. Those that resist and resent our involvement in helping to secure freedom for others, may at times, seem to prevail, but in the end, even that is illusory. Evolution, political and otherwise, has always meant that man was empowered and free to reach greater heights, unencumbered by the tyranny of other men asserting their dominion over his freedom, property, ideas or beliefs.

There are those that will go to great lengths to keep us from bringing freedom to others. They excoriate us, berate us, laugh at us and even support violence against us. They take great pleasure in our trials and tribulations. There are those who align themselves with evil so as to hurt us- and then rejoice in our pain. There are those that would support the propaganda and ideologies that would demoralize and weaken us. With all their might, deceit and hatred, they would relentlessly attack us- but in the end, it will all be for naught. Americans will defend freedom, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They may at times kill or harm the messenger, but they cannot kill the message. Freedom, in the end, will prevail.

Despite the ongoing and systematic subversion of freedom's message from within by those whose rhetoric mindlessly supports freedom, but whose actions have exactly the opposite effect, the courageous Democrats and ever-so-brave lunatics of the left have managed to foolishly convince themselves that the "real" enemy of freedom is Bush. They strut around convinced by their own smug, self-righteous slogans that they are defending freedom, even as they kiss up to any two-bit despot or tyrant in the world; even as U.S. military personnel confront the true enemies of freedom and civilization in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, despite their strident wails and transparent attempts to consolidate their own power and influence no matter what the cost, they are only becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Because, in the end--one way or the other--I have no doubt that freedom will indeed prevail.

No comments: