Actually, it is the political left's last chance to ensure defeat in Iraq. That is their goal; it has always been their goal; and now they are quite desperate to achieve that goal. That is why all the stops have been pulled out in their reckless criticisms and defeatist rhetoric. Their neurotic glee at every American death is clearly palpable, because each death represents a marvelouos victory for their antiwar hysteria. This has been the case for the entire Iraq war, but the volume has been turned up to max on their voices of doom since they (mistakenly, I believe) appear to think that the results of the midterm elections are proof that America is buying into their agenda.
Of course they did not believe for a moment that America was buying into Bush when he soundly trounced them in the 2004 election--but consistency is not their strong suit.
You see, no matter what, the left MUST make sure that Bush--and America--lose in Iraq. The only catastrophic consequences they can visualise comes about if America--and Bush--are perceived to have succeeded. In that quite horrific scenario, they correctly understand that their ideology will truly be taken out will all the other 20th century trash.
They are desperately counting on the success of totalitarian systems in this new century; but if there is one thing the world should have learned it is that given a choice, people will always choose freedom over tyranny. So it is very important that they take their stand against that choice, in solidarity with the forces of intolerance and oppression everywhere.
And they are filled with fear and loathing at the prospect. The triumph of freedom in the Middle East would dash all their hopes and dreams of a resurrected socialist/communist utopia. They blithely refer to all who oppose them as "fascists", but the truth is that in their neo-marxist agenda they themselves have evolved into the true fascists; and their complicity with the Islamofascist agenda is becoming more and more apparent to even their own useful idiots.
Mort Kondrake commented last night on the Fox News All-Stars that he didn't understand why the Democrats, having strongly and repeatedly made their point about how they feel about Iraq, the "surge", and Bush; don't now just "back off" and let events unfold to prove them correct? Clearly, that is what those who are patriotic and support the troops would do at this time.
His question is easy to answer. It doesn't take either a rocket scientist or a psychiatrist to figure out their motives.
The left is not content to let "events unfold", because left to their own devices, events just might not come to--as Webb put it in his response to the SOTU for the Democrats--"the proper conclusion."
They are filled with trepidation that Bush might be correct and that Iraq will turn around. They are desperate to throw the Bush Mideast policy of spreading democracy into the dustbin of history now--when they can most benefit from its discreditation--rather than actually wait for history to make its final determination because, frankly, history may choose to be rather kind to Mr. Bush.
They cannot bear the thought of "victory" (did you note how when Bush used that word, only half the congressional audience even stood up and applauded?).
The Democrats and the left know that this year is their last best chance before the election of 2008 to facilitate failure in Iraq. As they they strut about piously talking about how much they support the troops and agonizing about the daily death tolls from Baghdad, they deliberately and with malice aforethought plan to bring defeat. They sense that it is within their grasp--and if they can acihieve defeat and humiliation for the US, they are confident they will win the White House. And if the Democrats win the White House after such a defeat, then they will be forever in the debt of their leftist base.
SC&A pointed out not too long ago:
Wars are not pretty and they are always messy. The minute the first innocent is killed in a war is the moment that war becomes immoral. Of course, all wars are immoral. That said, not all wars are unjust.
We have noted that the Bush administration policy of wanting to bring democracy to the Middle East is a good one. There is no rational argument against that policy, period. To base criticism of the President on his belief that peoples living under tyrannies would not be better off in the long run, under free governments, is absurd. Those who espouse such views are essentially irrelevant to any discussion.
It is also clear that we may need to revisit the plans of this administration’s implementation of policies that would free those under the boot of oppression. That reexamination in no way negates the validity of the policies or doctrines that hold freedom and liberty in higher regard than tyranny and oppression.
The media and those in opposition want us to leave Iraq now, because they understand that in the end, the Bush administration’s policies of wanting to bring freedom to the region will be seen as a worthwhile effort and one to be emulated. The media and virulent objectors to this administration’s policies know they will be held to account for their perfidy.
Yes it is the left's last chance. They have chosen to hang their hopes for regaining power on bringing about a "proper conclusion" (for them) in Iraq, rather than victory. Because only in the utter defeat and humiliation America--and, of course, the BushHitler--will their ideology, already terminal and on life-support, be given a much-needed transfusion.
And, isn't it rather ironic, considering all their mindless chanting about "peace" and "brotherhood", that the very life of their ideology now depends on a transfusion--i.e., an American defeat in Iraq--composed of the blood and misery of those millions they woould abandon to the malignant tyranny of the Islamists.
But, that's what today's illiberal left is all about.
UPDATE: New Year's Resolution:
Post a Comment