You Don't Win in Politics Playing Only Defense

The New York Times reported this past week that most Americans don't see the connection between the war in Iraq and defeating our current determined, patient enemy, one dedicated to killing Americans and ultimately destroying Western civilization. Sadly, I have to ask, is it any wonder?

The only thing more exhausting and pointless than the endless carping of the ankle biters in the 5th column MSM browbeating President Bush and other members of the administration about the 'non—existent' connection between Iraq and 9/11, is hearing the lame responses by some of those who supposedly do understand why it was absolutely essential to launch Saddam Hussein's regime after 9/11. Sadly, I must include in that assessment the President's responses during his Monday, August 21, 2006 presser.

Here is an example of what has me so frustrated. On  Hardball the day following the President's press conference,  MSNBC's own Screamer, Chris Matthews, interviewed Paul Hackett, who has gotten more mileage out of losing an election than anyone since Al Gore.,Representing the other side of the conversation was a Republican named Van Taylor, who is running for Congress in Texas.

After subjecting Mr. Taylor to a contentious prosecutorial line of questioning, Matthews made his point that we had no reason to go into Iraq and that the Iraq war has no connection to keeping America safe. The exchange concluded as follows:

MATTHEWS: What's wrong with me asking the question [why did we attack Iraq]? We are in a war.  Pearl Harbor started World War II.

TAYLOR: That's a question you can ask ...

MATTHEWS: What start it? Why did we go into Iraq?

TAYLOR: That is a question you can ask historians, but today we need to send people to Washington who understand the war on terror. There is not a single member of the United States Congress that has served in the war on terror, and there are only two dozen combat veterans. I will be the very first. We need to send people like me in Washington.

Now, I'm sorry but the answer to Matthews' incessant badgering is not "that's a question for historians." 

That answer is pathetic. That is not only unresponsive, it's the squandering of a golden opportunity to smack down this idiotic line of questioning. Here's the answer, Chris, and all other liberals should hear:

We went into Iraq to prevent it from becoming the new Afghanistan, a staging area for terrorists to launch another 9/11. Do you doubt that they want to do that, Chris? If so, I'd love to know where you get your sunny optimism about these head choppers, just so I could feel a little better about our future.

In a post—911 world we couldn't leave a regime in place with not just a history of assisting terrorists, but one that was the obvious place bin Laden would go if the Taliban were deposed. Don't take my word for it. No less a Bush administration critic than Richard Clarke warned in February, 1999 that if bin Laden were attacked in Afghanistan he would 'boogie to Baghdad.' (see p. 134, 9/11 Report).

To quote a certain radio ad, "It's the biggest no—brainer in the history of earth," isn't it?

People who incessantly carp about Iraq's having no connection to 9/11 reveal a basic philosophical approach to fighting Islamofascism that is a road to disaster. That is, they are making the John Kerry mistake, assuming that preserving Western civilization is all about law enforcement, going after the bad guys after they have left thousands dead in smoldering rubble.

Repeating: it's not 7—11 (as in arresting the perp who knocked off the convenience market). It's 9/11, as in stopping these murderous maniacs before they strike again. Leaving a haven for them to plot and launch their plans, with the assistance of a friendly state like Iraq, would have been the height of foolishness.

Let's get serious. Had President Bush left Iraq as a haven for bin Laden and other terrorists, the Bush—haters would have been the first to say so and to blame him for not seeing that obvious fact that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat to our security.

The voters have a clear choice, Chris: the Bill Clinton, John Kerry reactive law enforcement approach to keeping us safe, or and President Bush's pro—active disaster—prevention approach. Iraq is an example of latter, and it's that simple.

I am very disappointed that our spokes people seem so unable or unwilling to state the obvious and respond to these aggressively senseless harangues. They need to play hardball with critics who are also enemies.

Republicans need to remember that the 5th column mainstream media is not going to make the case for the war in Iraq, or the war for the preservation of Western civilization for that matter. The hackneyed cliché spewed by the likes of Chris Matthews are easily demolished. With less than 80 days left until the midterm elections, it's damn time our candidates started doing so.

Teri O'Brien hosts a talk show on Chicago's WLS radio.

The New York Times reported this past week that most Americans don't see the connection between the war in Iraq and defeating our current determined, patient enemy, one dedicated to killing Americans and ultimately destroying Western civilization. Sadly, I have to ask, is it any wonder?

The only thing more exhausting and pointless than the endless carping of the ankle biters in the 5th column MSM browbeating President Bush and other members of the administration about the 'non—existent' connection between Iraq and 9/11, is hearing the lame responses by some of those who supposedly do understand why it was absolutely essential to launch Saddam Hussein's regime after 9/11. Sadly, I must include in that assessment the President's responses during his Monday, August 21, 2006 presser.

Here is an example of what has me so frustrated. On  Hardball the day following the President's press conference,  MSNBC's own Screamer, Chris Matthews, interviewed Paul Hackett, who has gotten more mileage out of losing an election than anyone since Al Gore.,Representing the other side of the conversation was a Republican named Van Taylor, who is running for Congress in Texas.

After subjecting Mr. Taylor to a contentious prosecutorial line of questioning, Matthews made his point that we had no reason to go into Iraq and that the Iraq war has no connection to keeping America safe. The exchange concluded as follows:

MATTHEWS: What's wrong with me asking the question [why did we attack Iraq]? We are in a war.  Pearl Harbor started World War II.

TAYLOR: That's a question you can ask ...

MATTHEWS: What start it? Why did we go into Iraq?

TAYLOR: That is a question you can ask historians, but today we need to send people to Washington who understand the war on terror. There is not a single member of the United States Congress that has served in the war on terror, and there are only two dozen combat veterans. I will be the very first. We need to send people like me in Washington.

Now, I'm sorry but the answer to Matthews' incessant badgering is not "that's a question for historians." 

That answer is pathetic. That is not only unresponsive, it's the squandering of a golden opportunity to smack down this idiotic line of questioning. Here's the answer, Chris, and all other liberals should hear:

We went into Iraq to prevent it from becoming the new Afghanistan, a staging area for terrorists to launch another 9/11. Do you doubt that they want to do that, Chris? If so, I'd love to know where you get your sunny optimism about these head choppers, just so I could feel a little better about our future.

In a post—911 world we couldn't leave a regime in place with not just a history of assisting terrorists, but one that was the obvious place bin Laden would go if the Taliban were deposed. Don't take my word for it. No less a Bush administration critic than Richard Clarke warned in February, 1999 that if bin Laden were attacked in Afghanistan he would 'boogie to Baghdad.' (see p. 134, 9/11 Report).

To quote a certain radio ad, "It's the biggest no—brainer in the history of earth," isn't it?

People who incessantly carp about Iraq's having no connection to 9/11 reveal a basic philosophical approach to fighting Islamofascism that is a road to disaster. That is, they are making the John Kerry mistake, assuming that preserving Western civilization is all about law enforcement, going after the bad guys after they have left thousands dead in smoldering rubble.

Repeating: it's not 7—11 (as in arresting the perp who knocked off the convenience market). It's 9/11, as in stopping these murderous maniacs before they strike again. Leaving a haven for them to plot and launch their plans, with the assistance of a friendly state like Iraq, would have been the height of foolishness.

Let's get serious. Had President Bush left Iraq as a haven for bin Laden and other terrorists, the Bush—haters would have been the first to say so and to blame him for not seeing that obvious fact that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat to our security.

The voters have a clear choice, Chris: the Bill Clinton, John Kerry reactive law enforcement approach to keeping us safe, or and President Bush's pro—active disaster—prevention approach. Iraq is an example of latter, and it's that simple.

I am very disappointed that our spokes people seem so unable or unwilling to state the obvious and respond to these aggressively senseless harangues. They need to play hardball with critics who are also enemies.

Republicans need to remember that the 5th column mainstream media is not going to make the case for the war in Iraq, or the war for the preservation of Western civilization for that matter. The hackneyed cliché spewed by the likes of Chris Matthews are easily demolished. With less than 80 days left until the midterm elections, it's damn time our candidates started doing so.

Teri O'Brien hosts a talk show on Chicago's WLS radio.