Search This Blog

Thursday, November 1, 2007



The truth is that I had significant reservations when the decision was made to invade Iraq – both the first time and the second time. I was not convinced that it was possible for a democracy to exist in the Middle East. Yes, it’s true that Saddam’s Bathist regime was secular, but it was also a brutal dictatorship. And Saddam himself was an ego-maniacal ruler with delusions of grandeur. He and his sons were sadistic and deranged. Nevertheless, his violent dictatorship held the passions of the various brands of Islam in check. Was it really possible that a democracy, in any form, could exist in this blood soaked region?

Having those reservations, I must say that the current situation is very encouraging. There truly is a natural human desire for freedom and the visible evidence of this desire was the last election held in Iraq. Who among us would go to the polls if there was a not too unlikely chance that we would be shot or blown up? It’s great to espouse freedom and talk about the importance of voting, but Iraqis not only voted, they also turned out in record numbers. That human desire for freedom expressed itself when entire families risked injury and death to cast their vote. It was truly inspiring.

Yet the violence and bloodshed continued and each day our newspapers and major television networks led with the deaths of Iraqis and our American soldiers. In the halls of Congress folks like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. trumpeted the failure of the war. Senator Reid even stated that "The War is lost."

Now Harry, Nancy, Ted and their friends are certainly entitled to express their points of view, although I must admit that it often seems as if they are cheering for the other side. When do attacks on our military become akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

In their position as leaders they relentlessly heralded the deaths of our troops, while yet asserting that they support the troops. OK, that may seem inconsistent to me, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

But now there’s silence regarding the current situation in Iraq. Silence from The Washington Post, the LA Times, and the New York Times. Silence from CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Silence from Time, Newsweek, and US News. Silence from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obamma, et. al.

Why the silence?

They weren’t silent when General Petraeus testified before Congress. They weren’t silent when our troops were dying. They weren’t silent when the war was going badly. Why are those on the left so silent now?

You and I know the war is going better, much better. The surge (which they all opposed) is clearly working. So why is this dramatic change not touted in the big newspapers and on the national television networks and by political leaders on the left? Aren’t they pro-America first, and liberals second? Aren’t they intellectually honest?

Their silence is deafening. 

There is only one logical conclusion. They are silent because they are more interested in seizing political power, than they are in protecting and securing the safety of the United States of America. They would rather see America suffer defeat and see Iraq fall under the complete sway of the terrorists than to see our troops and the United States succeed.

They are silent because they are not intellectually honest. All they do is attack, attack, attack. Clearly their policy is rule or ruin.

Can there be any other conclusion?

To be sure, the war is not over. But shouldn’t we as Americans, regardless of our political stripe, hail and celebrate the success of our armed forces in the field of battle? Have we become so partisan and so corrupted that it’s all about power and politics and there’s no longer any room for love of country?

Shame! Shame!

In this case silence is not golden. It’s just dishonest and unpatriotic.

No comments:

Post a Comment