Monday, September 25, 2006

We don't want to make the terrorists mad at us for goodness' sake!

A report came out recently that is being gushed over by the Democrats that says the War in Iraq is breeding more terrorists. The first thing I thought was how odd that was, seeing as how, according to the Democrats, the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism.

It's more than that though. Think about what this report and what the Democrats are saying. They are saying that to fight an enemy is useless because you just breed more of what you are fighting:

I'm sorry President Roosevelt, we are going to have to let Hitler do what he wants. Fighting him will only make him mad and it will breed more Nazis.

Neal Boortz came up with the best logical answer to this insane argument. I will just post the whole thing instead of making you scroll through today's entry until you find it:
Much being said today about a National Intelligence Estimates which says that our invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein has helped to spawn a new generation of radical Islamic jihadists.

Let's turn the clock back a generation or so, to the beginning of the civil rights movement. Just a quick question for you. What if the New York Times ran a headline which read: "Civil Rights Movement Said to Worsen Threat of Racism." The article tells you "Efforts by the Justice Department to end racial discrimination in the South has helped spawn a new wave of racial animosity." You read further and discover that recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan has increased since the federal government stepped up its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks.

Tell me .. .would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?

Democrats, desperate to do anything to reverse their slide in the polls, are jumping on this story big time, with no small amount of help from the media.

Jane Harman, the most senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says every intelligence analyst she has talked to confirms what the report says. Says Harman: "And that is why the best military commission proposal in the world and even capturing the remaining top Al-Qaeda leadership isn't going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn't going to change a failed policy in Iraq. This administration is trying to change the subject. I don't think voters are going to buy that."

Oh really?

Look closely at the Democratic position here. They are saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism. In other words, we made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might make the Islamic terrorists upset. That being the case, can you imagine how mad the Islamic fascists would be if we caught or killed Osama bin Laden? That is, if he isn't already dead.

Maybe we should call off the hunt for Osama, Mullah Omar, and the rest of them! After all, if we catch them it's just going to piss these pissants off. Can't have that, can we?
If we base the validity of our wars based on whether or not we will make our enemy mad, then that kind of keeps us from ever defending ourselves, doesn't it. Of course, I'm sure that suits most leftists and Democrats just fine.

Good Day to You, Sir

1 comment:

Darren said...

The Civil Rights analogy was spot on. Thanks for posting it.