Running on a record

Back in Novemeber 2006, I predicted right before the election that the Republicans would lose in the midterm elections because of their greatest success – preventing further attacks against Americans on our own soil. Nearly two years later, nothing has changed – there have been no further successful attacks. The Left continues to use the Republicans success against them by intimating that there is no threat because there’ve been no attacks. Democrats have successfully diverted the discussion away from security and on to the subject that gets them the most votes – the economy.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Karl Rove writes that the left avoids talking about national security because, as we used to say in the infantry, they’re LIW – Lost In the Woods;

For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.

It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

Rove goes on to quotes Democrat Party leaders deep in denial;

In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” This week, she said “we’ll be right back at square one” in Iraq by this summer.

In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” He said a month earlier there was “no progress being made in Iraq” and “it is not getting better, it is getting worse.”

Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: “There haven’t been gains . . . This is a failure.” Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge “has failed.”

This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.

Their one hope is that John McCain keeps repeating his absurd comment that we’ll keep troops in Iraq for 100 years (Examiner link);

…McCain’s response at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe 100,” McCain answered. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

I know what he meant, my readers know what he meant, but the knee-jerk media (with whom McCain has lost his luster) distorted it to mean that McCain would stay there and fight a war for a hundred years. McCain should have known better.

But the fact remains that anyone concerned about our security can’t seriously consider the Democrats. Their strategy is to pay off our enemies with perks – and generally ignore the more dangerous. Similar to Jimmy Carter’s strategy that led to the rise of the Islamic Republic (which led to the Iran-Iraq War, the arming of Saddam beyond his security needs and eventually the current war in Iraq), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which led to the rise of the Taliban eventually).

The Democrats’ vocal base won’t let them talk about real national security; Code Pink is holding common sense hostage while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid prevent discussion and passage of essential national security legislation. Our national security is dependent on a tiny group of shrieking drag queens.

Just wait till they run both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Category: Foreign Policy, John McCain/Sarah Palin, Politics, Terror War