Monday, April 23, 2007
Democrat Neo-Comms and “Diplomatic” Compromise with Fascism
Okay...most Democrats are “opposed to the war” (opposed to using the American military to establish a peaceful, free, and open society in Iraq). 'Some reasonable and unreasonable arguments can certainly be made on tactics, BUT, what's with some of the more ridiculous quotes coming out of the Democrat's Jacobin wing?
Most Democrats voted for removing Saddam Hussein. “Regime change” was an official stated policy of the Clinton administration. There are numerous quotes – recorded on video – of prominent Democrats expressing their concern regarding Saddam's suspected stockpiles or potential development of weapons of mass-destruction. Yet, with all of this in their closet, most Democrats have ranted defeatist rhetoric since the initial weeks of the war's commencement. Since then they've (of course there are a few reasonable and dignified exceptions) literally done everything in their power to undermine the establishment of a free society in Iraq. They have perpetually sided with the views of “spokespersons” from the left and terrorists in their hatred for not only George Bush, but the United States in general.
We are told “not to question their patriotism.” Well I wish to be among those who question many Democrat's patriotism – and sanity.
Here's a classic quote from John Murtha (D-Pa) the other day; “They won the war and the mission was accomplished. We cannot win it militarily. It can only be won diplomatically.”
Overlooking the bizarre contradictions in his statement...Is he serious?!
“...diplomatically.”?! The American military and its allies, along with the elected Iraqi government, are trying to stem the tide of fanatic violence, and we need to establish “diplomatic” approaches -- with suicide bombers, terrorist factions, and former Baath party fascists? Maybe we can work on trade negotiations and joint space missions with Al Queda?
Sorry to be so blunt but there is no “diplomatic” angle to this scenario. The enemy is fascist by every definition. They're not going to make agreements with a goal of reaching peaceful solutions and a free society. Like all fascists (and I include communists with fascists – both being extreme collectivists willing to sacrifice individual freedom for the cause of obedience to an omnipotent state power), their end is not adaptable, negotiable, or aimed to noble purpose. They want to establish maximum tyranny, over Iraq and beyond.
There are some cases where you either surrender to or defeat a committed and ruthless enemy. An imaginary middle choice of running and hoping that the police state that emerges will be nice to people is not a legitimate option.
The issue is not about George Bush's character, weapons of mass destruction, or “imperialism,” it's about stopping an ideology whose tactic has continually been deliberate violence against civilians to prevent them from establishing a peaceful and open society. Calling for “diplomacy” with terror factions would be like working out a compromise with a mugger.
In seeing reality for what it is, the Democrats have a few noble exceptions among them, (i.e. Joseph Lieberman and former New York mayor Edward Koch -- both are “liberal” in all matters beyond the war with Islamic Fascism), but for the most part, Democrats want to see America fail in Iraq, and by default want to see fascist thugs rule (of course, they would never come right out and say that). Why? Because they hate George Bush. Sorry, but I don't think that's a good reason to hope for the triumph of fascism in the Middle East.
The free world (I think we can start using that term again) is now full of people, cell phones in hand and I-pods in ear, who think “stop the war” is a valid rallying cry to stem the tide of contemporary fascism. “Stop the fascists” would make more sense but then again, many don't even know who the fascists are. Here's a hint; they're the one's who don't want to see a free and prosperous pluralistic society in Iraq or anywhere else (Starbucks, McDonalds, I-pods, and internet blogs are not expressions of fascism).
Those who continually seek to undermine the fostering of freedom, peace, and security in Iraq are serving no noble purpose. Democrats who call for “diplomacy” and compromise with totalitarian ideologies can hardly be called “patriots.”
America's Democrats; question their patriotism – and question their sanity.
