Boomerang
With reports describing what the National Intelligence Estimate really said, it looks like a document that the Democrats had hoped to use to injure President Bush may, instead, prove damaging to their own hopes to retake Congress -- and cut and run in Iraq.
As leaked (incompletely) by Bush adversaries, the NIE report was purported to demonstrate that the Iraq war had increased the terrorist threat -- thereby, the Democrats argued, worsening the problem and making us less safe.
It should be obvious that when any threat is addressed directly, it will grow worse while the battle rages. After all, back in 1941, the "problem" with Japan worsened enormously after Pearl Harbor, when we fought back. Ultimately, however, the Japan problem was "better" than if the United States had never gone to battle; in fact, it was solved.
The analogy is the same here. Of course, when terrorists are confronted directly, the threat grows while the battle is joined. The question is whether victory can eliminate or reduce the threat.
Put in context, the NIE report actually notes that if the US and the Iraqi government defeat the terrorists in Iraq, it will hinder the recruiting of more terrorists -- thereby making us more safe. In other words, if we win the war, it will be a serious blow to the Islamofascist cause.
So a report that was intended to injure President Bush merely serves to sharpen the contrast between Republicans like the President, and the Democratic Party's non-approach to the war on terror. It's a contrast that works to the Republicans' advantage.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, the Democrats want us to retreat from Iraq and cede victory to the terrorists. The Republicans understand that the danger increases temporarily while we fight, but that, as General Abizaid told Hugh Hewitt, the war is winnable and can bring with it a real reduction in the threat to America.
Ultimately, as always, the choice is left to the good sense of the American people. Will we elect leaders who are committed to the victory that will make us safer, or to a policy of defeat and retreat that will only embolden the terrorists that have been recruited throughout the war?
Ronald Reagan once said, "I don't believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing." The decision is ours.
As leaked (incompletely) by Bush adversaries, the NIE report was purported to demonstrate that the Iraq war had increased the terrorist threat -- thereby, the Democrats argued, worsening the problem and making us less safe.
It should be obvious that when any threat is addressed directly, it will grow worse while the battle rages. After all, back in 1941, the "problem" with Japan worsened enormously after Pearl Harbor, when we fought back. Ultimately, however, the Japan problem was "better" than if the United States had never gone to battle; in fact, it was solved.
The analogy is the same here. Of course, when terrorists are confronted directly, the threat grows while the battle is joined. The question is whether victory can eliminate or reduce the threat.
Put in context, the NIE report actually notes that if the US and the Iraqi government defeat the terrorists in Iraq, it will hinder the recruiting of more terrorists -- thereby making us more safe. In other words, if we win the war, it will be a serious blow to the Islamofascist cause.
So a report that was intended to injure President Bush merely serves to sharpen the contrast between Republicans like the President, and the Democratic Party's non-approach to the war on terror. It's a contrast that works to the Republicans' advantage.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, the Democrats want us to retreat from Iraq and cede victory to the terrorists. The Republicans understand that the danger increases temporarily while we fight, but that, as General Abizaid told Hugh Hewitt, the war is winnable and can bring with it a real reduction in the threat to America.
Ultimately, as always, the choice is left to the good sense of the American people. Will we elect leaders who are committed to the victory that will make us safer, or to a policy of defeat and retreat that will only embolden the terrorists that have been recruited throughout the war?
Ronald Reagan once said, "I don't believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing." The decision is ours.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:40 PM
1 Comments:
The Reagan quote is so appropo here. I think it's imperative that the United States stay involved and engaged in the fight against terrorism in general, and completing the task in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular. The focus of the radicals is on this struggle and puttin' the big hurt on them there will be devastating for their morale. It's unfortunate that the difference between winning and losing this fight is not understood by too many in this country.
Post a Comment
<< Home