Click Here North Star Writers Group
Syndicated Content.
Eric Baerren
Lucia de Vernai
Herman Cain
Dan Calabrese
Alan Hurwitz
Paul Ibrahim
David Karki
Llewellyn King
Nathaniel Shockey
Stephen Silver
Candace Talmadge
Jessica Vozel
Feature Page
David J. Pollay - The Happiness Answer
Cindy Droog - The Working Mom
The Laughing Chef
Mike Ball - What I've Learned So Far
Bob Batz - Senior Moments
D.F. Krause - Business Ridiculous
Paul Ibrahim
  Paul's Column Archive
January 4, 2006

Democrats: The Greater Wartime Threat


Americans were put to shame on December 15, 2005. The Iraqi elections they have made possible yielded a voter turnout that eclipsed American participation in federal elections over several decades. Not even the 2004 presidential election, which proved to be one of the most heated in U.S. history, was enough to generate a voter turnout comparable to that of the Iraqis’.


The months old democracy the Bush administration established in Iraq has clearly taken solid root, as participation across ethnic and religious lines proved the existence of a national consensus on the concept of freedom.


Iraqis voted in the Sunni Triangle. They voted in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. They voted in Britain, Austria, Turkey and a dozen other countries. They voted in Dearborn, Michigan and McLean, Virginia. Iraqis also voted in Syria. Not even Syrians can vote in Syria.


Iraq has officially joined the global league of democracies. It sits atop the Arab world as a shining example of representative government, although it has yet to achieve total security. Iraqi troops are increasingly taking the lead in conducting security operations and securing cities, and reconstruction is proceeding at an accelerated rate. Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe their lives are going well, although they do not include Saddam Hussein. This exception comes to the disappointment of French President Jacques Chirac, whom the Baath idol recently praised as a “longtime friend.”


If he looks hard enough, Saddam might find a few more friends in the Democratic Party of the United States. Despite all of the superb improvements and splendid progress in Iraq, our friends in the minority party have not been so keen on the idea of success in that country. From among their number has come, to help the dictator, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to serve on his defense team, because attempting to discredit American efforts in Iraq from inside the Beltway is not enough – it also has to be done from Baghdad proper.


While America is engaged in a struggle to prevent brutal terrorists from taking over Iraq, Democrats are working overtime to achieve their own takeover of Congress. Whether or not it is true, they sincerely believe that a Democratic victory at the polls in 2006 cannot be achieved along with an American victory in Iraq. And it is clear that of the two options, many if not most of them have chosen the one that threatens the security of America and the stability of the world.


It was not long ago when Howard Dean proudly proclaimed, “the idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.” Never mind the fact that improvements in Iraq and the optimism of both high and low-ranking members of the American military on the ground contradict Dean’s words. But if repeated loudly and widely enough, this sentiment can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. While it is unfathomable, based on our successes so far, to lose the war against the ever-weakening terrorists on the ground in Iraq, it is quite possible for the inevitable victory to be sabotaged from Capitol Hill.


“But he is not representative of our Party’s views on the war,” Democrats would say about Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Even if that were the case, there are not many other Democrats offering much else.


Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha, supposedly one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress and now an anti-war hero, has launched a rhetorical campaign seeking the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. With the backing of other Democratic friends, he has set out to convince Americans to support the one policy action that would lead to the most destabilizing situation in the world - an Iraq in anarchy.


Congressman Murtha has become a national embarrassment and a threat to the country. Surely, we are grateful to him for serving his country valiantly in the past, and are quite impressed with the medals he has earned. But the fact of the matter is that he is advocating a policy that would, without a doubt, and to any mind with an analytical capacity higher than that a doorknob, pave the way for civil war, genocide and the unstoppable spread of terrorism across the Muslim world and around the globe. This prospect far outweighs Murtha’s past contributions to the United States, and as such the man deserves no respect for his recklessness.


It is one thing to criticize certain decisions taken by the Bush administration, including ones concerning such issues as troop levels and post-war planning. It is another thing to falsely claim that the President purposely lied, and more outrageously, to urge an immediate withdrawal for immediate political gain. Even if an immediate withdrawal does earn Democrats a majority in Congress, they forget that they would also be running a country that is being constantly attacked by terrorists at home, and facing far more emboldened enemies abroad. Yet not even this calamitous prospect can deter leaders in the Democratic Party from doing all they can to satiate their hunger for power.


© 2006 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.


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 # PI2. Request permission to publish here.