Going into the 2006 elections, I argued that putting the Democrats in power would not serve the national security interests of this country very well, at all.
Not that all Democrats were incapable of acting with competence and responsibility in this arena; that would be painting with too broad of a brush and simply unfair. What was a fair assessment, however, was that those who would take the reigns were not.
Nancy Pelosi’s comments that Iraq was not a war to be won, but a problem to be solved foretold what was to come.
The inability of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s actions to reflect an admission, willingness to concede, or comprehension that our Marines and soldiers daily faced Al Qaeda in Iraq stood out then and does so even more today.
I posed the question and have many times since, “If Al Qaeda is a threat worth pursuing throughout the world, why not pursue them in Iraq?” Yet they try desperately to run from the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Most Democratic leaders have avoided the politically messy questions concerning Iraq. How do we address the Islamic state Al Qaeda desires to establish in Iraq? How about the power it garners Iran? What of the genocide that is sure to be unleashed on a level we’ve probably not seen since Rwanda? What impact will running away have for emboldening others who may want to harm us? What about the message it sends friends and allies about how much they can depend on the U.S. when times get tough? What are the consequences for having lost a war because we didn’t have the resolve to win?
These inquiries are not usually made of them by journalists, and when they are, they go unanswered, circumvented in a way that only a politician can not answer a question. In doing so, they promote their political agenda while ignoring the reality of the consequences for surrender in Iraq.
Even today, while the majority of Democrats are trying to force a timetable for capitulation in Iraq, these questions remain unanswered.
Through an almost fanatical obsession with creating defeat in Iraq by virtue of attempting to cut off funds for the troops, establishing unrealistic timetables for arbitrary withdrawal, and dates certain for surrender, they show their inability to grasp the challenge of national security and prove what was foretold.
The only sensible voices on that side of the aisle have been Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Although Senator Lieberman was partially thrown overboard by his party, at least his position has remained consistent with sound national security policy. Senator Nelson’s rhetoric and actions through the Iraq debate have been fair, reasoned, logical, and have to this point, demonstrated a grasp of the challenges in Iraq, as well as the impact our decisions concerning Iraq have on the entirety of our national security.
Maybe those two should be running that caucus? Unfortunately, I doubt the far-left ultra-liberals, who seem to have taken over that party, would allow that to happen.
Beyond Iraq, the leadership in Congress has provided some other interesting proof of ignorance concerning the threats we face in the world. When Congressional Quarterly quizzed House members on national security matters, the man the Democrats had pegged to chair the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, flunked.
Reyes did not know the religious background of Al Qaeda, the very thing that fuels them, nor did he know what Hezbollah was.
I can understand when the average Congressional representative might not be up to speed on such things, they each have their expertise, and there are Republicans who have failed the same quiz in the past. I’m confident a lack of knowledge on such matters among members of Congress often leads to some of the unintelligent debate we see on the subject.
But to appoint someone as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who can’t correctly answer basic questions about the two most predominant terrorist groups in the world helps prove my thoughts about the Democratic leadership being ill-equipped to act on matters of national security.
Ever notice how they often avoid the fact, sometimes to the point of denial, that we are engaged in a war against terrorists? I cite the recent House Armed Services Committee memo which even bans the use of the term, “Global War on Terror.”
Most recently the House Intelligence Committee has forwarded legislation to have our intelligence agencies study the effects of global warming on national security. Let me get this right: Iraq is not a war to be won, capitulation in Iraq would not have an impact on national security (otherwise why would they push so hard to do so?), the leader of the same committee doesn’t know who the terror groups are, and even after 9/11 there is no war on terror? But we can have those responsible for tracking and protecting us from terrorists, divert their time and money to study the THEORY of global warming?
I think it’s time to send some members of the House and Senate “Thank You” notes for helping prove my point. I don’t think I could have scripted it any better.