Wednesday, August 01, 2007


Thomas Sowell thinks that it is time to "defeat the defeatists":

If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

As they say, read it all.

I believe that the Democrats are hedging their bets on Iraq at the moment and are acting out of their deepest convictions and moral principles.

Not that they actually have any convictions or morals, you see; but that is exactly and precisely the point. You can't act on convictions and morals you don't possess.

All politicians are guilty of trying to hedge their bets when they can get away with it, of course; both Democrat and Republican. But the rhetoric employed by the Dems since their defeat in 2000 has consistently depended on US failure and defeat because such rhetoric plays well to their leftist base. That base has bet their entire fascist-enabling ideology on America's defeat and humilitation.

The Democrat's dilemma is that they can't possibly win an election with only that base, so they have to pander to the patriotic Americans just enough not to alienate them completely.

Clearly, from their perspective, it would be best if America surrendered and admitted defeat, particularly while the hated BushHitler is in power. That would be the optimal outcome in Iraq. And, if that glorious event occurred, they could keep their lunatic anti-American, anti-Bush, base; and win over those disgusted that the Republicans and Bush managed to lose a war and sacrifice American lives for nothing.

But, oh dear. What if things turn around?? People will remember any definitive action they implemented to impede success.... People might be upset. THEIR POLLS WOULD SUFFER!!!

So, best to not actually do anything and just talk about doing something and see how things play out. They can alway claim they were just being patriotic (in some bizarre and psychotic sense of that word).

If they simultaneously committed to both the surrender rhetoric and clearly acted to ensure that a path was open to surrender and defeat-- and then that nincompoop Bush managed yet again to pull things out of the fire--they would be DOA in 2008.

They can't be bothered with doing or saying anything productive or coming up with any strategies to win a war their country is involved in, but they can be counted on to be genuinely concerned with winning back the White House in 2008. They can be counted on to continue their rhetoric of surrender and hopelessness.

If only the American people will just wake up and see what is really happening in Iraq AND what is really motivating the dysfunctional Democrats, who care more about their power than they do about this country ("dulce et decorum est pro Reid & Pelosi mori"?).

As Sowell says, it is time to defeat the defeatists. Soundly.

No comments: