The Predictable Democratic Reaction
Sadly, but predictably, Democrats chose to ignore the President's speech in their rush to criticize it. (The MoveOn.org talking points had, after all, already been available for several hours).
According to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the President's remarks only "served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America." Well, yes, Senator Reid. We haven't succeeded in defeating international Islamofascist terrorism in just four years -- thanks in no small part, one might add, to liberal insistence on resisting every effort America makes to do so (including our efforts in Iraq).
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry, apparently determined to highlight his deficiencies, showed up on Larry King to utter this bon mot about the supposedly shifting rationales for war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism." For someone supposedly so "nuanced" in his thinking, it's surprising that he can't bend his supple mind around the concept that there might (simultaneously even!) be more than one reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein. (But wait! That's right . . . Kerry's mind may not be as "supple" as he led all of us to believe).
[It's interesting to note that much of the MSM is echoing Kerry's talking point -- attempting to cast the President's speech as an effort to reframe the rationales for the war in Iraq. See Hugh Hewitt for details. But as Hugh points out, the left at the time was complaining about the multiple justifications for war.]
But the President spoke plainly enough to ensure that even some of the ideologically-blinded would be able to "get it." Even in the midst of a largely silly editorial, The Washington Post was able to comprehend the connection between our work in Iraq and Al Qaeda:
That connection is not spurious, even if Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of al Qaeda: Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists, and success or failure there will do much to determine the outcome of the larger struggle against them.
Thank you. That's right. And while Democrats continue to natter on and denigrate our efforts in Iraq, the American people are learning two things about them: (1) They don't understand the threat confronting us; and (2)they are unwilling -- and incapable -- of fighting the War on Terror.
If I were a Democratic political consultant, I'd be having a fit . . . watching my party lose America's confidence for a generation.
According to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the President's remarks only "served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America." Well, yes, Senator Reid. We haven't succeeded in defeating international Islamofascist terrorism in just four years -- thanks in no small part, one might add, to liberal insistence on resisting every effort America makes to do so (including our efforts in Iraq).
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry, apparently determined to highlight his deficiencies, showed up on Larry King to utter this bon mot about the supposedly shifting rationales for war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism." For someone supposedly so "nuanced" in his thinking, it's surprising that he can't bend his supple mind around the concept that there might (simultaneously even!) be more than one reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein. (But wait! That's right . . . Kerry's mind may not be as "supple" as he led all of us to believe).
[It's interesting to note that much of the MSM is echoing Kerry's talking point -- attempting to cast the President's speech as an effort to reframe the rationales for the war in Iraq. See Hugh Hewitt for details. But as Hugh points out, the left at the time was complaining about the multiple justifications for war.]
But the President spoke plainly enough to ensure that even some of the ideologically-blinded would be able to "get it." Even in the midst of a largely silly editorial, The Washington Post was able to comprehend the connection between our work in Iraq and Al Qaeda:
That connection is not spurious, even if Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of al Qaeda: Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists, and success or failure there will do much to determine the outcome of the larger struggle against them.
Thank you. That's right. And while Democrats continue to natter on and denigrate our efforts in Iraq, the American people are learning two things about them: (1) They don't understand the threat confronting us; and (2)they are unwilling -- and incapable -- of fighting the War on Terror.
If I were a Democratic political consultant, I'd be having a fit . . . watching my party lose America's confidence for a generation.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home