North Star Writers Group

While in the midst of a mid-term election season, we find ourselves also observing the fifth anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil. It is both appropriate and necessary to look back at the last five years and evaluate which of our political parties appear to have the correct ideas and temperament likely to lead to victory in World War IV (still fresh off our victory in World War III – the Cold War). First, the liberals and Democrats: I believe there are three possible explanations for their reflexive, obsessive opposition to everything President Bush says and does. One, they mean well but are simply extremely naive. Two, they're traitors (sort of). Three, they're insane.

• If liberals and Democrats don't intend to aid and comfort the enemy, and just really believe their naive sixties-peacenik "if we're just nice to them, they'll be nice to us" claptrap, then they're fools who'll get us all killed. Think about it. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we were willing to surrender to the Islamic jihadists. What would their terms be? Answer: nothing. Because all they want is for us to die. The 9/11 terrorists didn't negotiate, didn't make contact with authorities and issue demands. They followed a single course of action, both unwilling to change and incapable of changing it. That course? Mass slaughter. Why the left can't understand this, I don't know. (Even the leftist idea that humans are perfectible and that if we reason with the terrorists enough they'll eventually come around has to have its common-sense limits.)

• If they do intend to aid and comfort, then they're traitors. Of course, that word implies that they were once loyal to America, which I don't believe of many of them. Those on the far left have always been socialists first and Americans somewhere down the line. Heck, most of them are still sore the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, so convinced are they that Marxist ideas are correct and will work (never mind overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary). So their seeming to care more about not hurting terrorists' feelings (i.e. objecting to the phrase "Islamic fascists") and so forth is less about being on their side than it is about sharing a common intense dislike for the West in general and hating anyone who exposes their wrongness for the masses to see in particular (Reagan, Bush, etc.).

• Finally, there's the possibility that their intentions (be they good or bad) are irrelevant and the left has quite simply gone insane. Insane with rage over losing Congress in 1994 after having held it for so long they had come to believe it was their birthright. Insane with rage at President Clinton's impeachment (their blind defense of whom sent the clear, if morally bankrupt, message that there's no crime worth losing power over). And most of all, insane with rage at the photo-finish 2000 election. The Florida fiasco has left Democrats incapable of accepting any Bush action, so convinced are they that his entire administration should never have happened in the first place and therefore must be completely wiped out of the history books. (Hence Senate minority leader Harry Reid and 40 fellow Democrats wildly waving the filibuster like a machete at any legislation or judicial nominee that crosses his field of vision.) Therefore, they oppose the war on terror no matter how logically inexplicable doing so may be, simply because President Bush is the one waging it.

And there's an even more frightening angle, seen in the Democrat reaction to the ABC movie "The Path to 9/11," which aired the last two evenings. For daring to tell the truth and showing where then-President Clinton failed to stop Al Qaeda when he had the chance (as well as showing where President Bush made missteps), we had a political party threatening a TV network with revocation of its broadcast license unless it altered its programming in a way that party saw fit. In other words, Democrats were ready to reflexively respond with thuggish government censorship when a program - one we were all free to not watch if we didn't like it - portrayed them in a less than positive light. (Hmm, maybe we need to fool them into thinking Al Qaeda is ABC.)

It's bad enough to be well-meaning but really wrong on such a crucial issue as terrorism and national defense. It's tyrannical and evil to intimidate and threaten anyone who simply points that out. And the war on terror aside for the moment, it should automatically disqualify the Democrats from serious consideration this fall. When the only thing one will do upon regaining power is everything possible to ensure one never loses it again, one can never be allowed to regain it in the first place. And when this is viewed through the prism of a certain Hillary 2008 presidential run, it becomes exponentially more terrifying because we're not just talking about spinning history, but someone directly responsible (as self-appointed "co-president") and therefore a beneficiary of said censorship trying to get power back.

By the way, if you're wondering where my evaluation of President Bush and the GOP is, there isn't any need to add one. Compared with the ghastly alternative, they win by default. This isn't to say they're perfect (far from it) or that their plans are totally correct (they certainly aren't). I have misgivings with them and theirs, too – mostly that they fail to establish moral clarity (be it by not speaking enough or correctly, or worrying too much about what others think or what things may look like) to the point where it greatly undermines the war effort itself as a result.

But when the other side so totally fails to offer any serious case for itself, the result can only be a forfeited victory. Deserved or not, the GOP must retain its thin majority. And more than that, when they are so wrong on the most vital issue of our day (and show signs of mental instability and dictatorial bullying on top of it), the Democrats must lose.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK25. Request permission to publish here.