A Defeatist Strategy

The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.

While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy." The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.

First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.

Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack. 

This obnoxious tactic of constantly carping about an issue, causing it to become unworkable, and then saying it doesn't  work, is also on display in the capital punishment debate. Ideologues will tell us the death penalty doesn't work, while doing everything in their power to see to it that it fails. Murderers sit on Death Row for an average of 14 years because of a liberal justice system that allows them appeal after appeal. Most die of old age before they ever pay for their crimes. If convicted murderers were taken directly from the courtroom to the gas chamber, it would suddenly become a better deterrent for the next person with homicide on the mind. But, as in the war debate, abolutists will throw every obstacle in the path of the death penalty debate, cause it to appear ineffective and then say it doesn't work.

Thanks to these bleeding hearts, those who have been victimized by criminals become victims again when they sit through trial and appeal after appeal, with no hope of receiving justice for the pain inflicted upon them and their families. Then, in the rare occasion, when a cold-blooded killer is finally about to pay with his/her life, the handwringers are sure to be standing outside the prison decrying the "savagery of state-sponsored execution." I suppose, in their minds, execution is okay if it's not performed by the state, but by the psychopaths prowling around in search of innocent victims.

With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long? America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the excutive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. Email Bob.
The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.

While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy." The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.

First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.

Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack. 

This obnoxious tactic of constantly carping about an issue, causing it to become unworkable, and then saying it doesn't  work, is also on display in the capital punishment debate. Ideologues will tell us the death penalty doesn't work, while doing everything in their power to see to it that it fails. Murderers sit on Death Row for an average of 14 years because of a liberal justice system that allows them appeal after appeal. Most die of old age before they ever pay for their crimes. If convicted murderers were taken directly from the courtroom to the gas chamber, it would suddenly become a better deterrent for the next person with homicide on the mind. But, as in the war debate, abolutists will throw every obstacle in the path of the death penalty debate, cause it to appear ineffective and then say it doesn't work.

Thanks to these bleeding hearts, those who have been victimized by criminals become victims again when they sit through trial and appeal after appeal, with no hope of receiving justice for the pain inflicted upon them and their families. Then, in the rare occasion, when a cold-blooded killer is finally about to pay with his/her life, the handwringers are sure to be standing outside the prison decrying the "savagery of state-sponsored execution." I suppose, in their minds, execution is okay if it's not performed by the state, but by the psychopaths prowling around in search of innocent victims.

With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long? America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the excutive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. Email Bob.