Playing Games With Iraq

April 27, 2007

 

Naiveté took center stage at the recent Democrat debate in South Carolina. The prospective presidents fumbled and mumbled their way through questions about the Iraq war that ranged from Kucinich's “see-I-told-you-so” gloat to Hillary's “I-was-lied-to” excuse. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards made a rather bizarre departure from the other candidates. He did not raise his hand when moderator Brian Williams asked if the candidates believed there was such a thing as a global war on terror. Later, he elaborated, “ I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs.” That seems to be the standard position of the entire Democrat party on a national level. These candidates fail to understand that the time for negotiating with terrorists has long passed.

It was only a day after the debate that the Defense Department announced the capture of a high-level al Qaida operative by the name of Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi. Apparently, the CIA has been interrogating al-Iraqi since late last year. Do you, for one minute, think any of these Democrat candidates would've allowed the CIA four or five months with this terrorist before announcing his capture to the world? Human Rights Watch and other left-wing terrorist protectors immediately – and predictably – condemned the United States for not allowing this piece of human excrement proper legal counsel. This is how Edwards and the other Democrat candidates see this issue. It's a diplomatic problem that should be solved by legal means in federal courts instead of in interrogation rooms a la Jack Bauer of 24 . Personally, I don't think there's anything the CIA could've done to this guy that would be too horrific.

Can you imagine a President Hillary in this situation? She would surely succumb to the ACLU types who fight not for the security and safety of our country and its people but for the security and safety of the terrorists. In their eyes, we're the bad guys.

Don't think for one moment that John Edwards and his sue-happy friends wouldn't cave to the pressure from those who see this more as an issue of civil rights for the terrorists than a global war on terror. We now know that Edwards doesn't believe in a global war on terror. How, then, could we ever expect him to fight one?

Which leads to the cowardly way Congress handled the Iraq funding bill. Not only did they impose an unrealistic deadline but they piled on $24 billion in pork that had nothing to do with Iraq. The well-deserved veto means they'll have to start from square one; I'm sure their plan all along. They'll keep launching unreasonable funding bills knowing the president will veto them. In the meantime, money for the troops dries up and they point their fingers at Bush as a man who refuses to give the troops the resources they need to succeed in Iraq.

Harry Reid's recent comments that the war in Iraq is lost should've cost him his job. The very idea that one of our leaders, at a time of war, would make such a disruptive and destructive statement – even if he believes it – is beyond belief. He should've been shamed into stepping down but no such condemnation came from his own party and very little came from across the aisle.

There is so much at stake, not just in Iraq. The pitiful parade of choices the Democrats rolled out makes me fear for my country if any of them makes it to the White House.