Travis Rowley: Political Blood
Saturday, September 07, 2013
“Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Former Vice President Al Gore (D)
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” – Senator John Kerry (D)
“[Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” – Senator Hillary Clinton
Millions of American voters are currently having their minds blown. In addition to President Obama’s unilateral military strikes against Libya (a nation that didn’t attack us on 9/11) and the revelation of his participation in the NSA’s domestic spying program, the nation now witnesses its false prophet sink further into the world of geo-political reality as Obama advocates for war with Syria (a nation that didn’t attack us on 9/11).
It has been a pop culture media myth just as prominent as the “Republican war on women” – that is, that Republicans, in contrast to Democrats, represent the party of war. This became a misnomer so etched into the human psyche that it would ultimately help make Obama – the fulfillment of the Democrats’ “Anyone But Bush” campaign slogan – the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize just weeks past his first inauguration.
Obama wasn’t Bush. He was a Democrat. He was black. And he was now the President. So the world wouldn’t hate America anymore.
That’s the kind of crap liberals get people to believe.
But the fact of the matter is that the “neo-cons” can be found comfortably residing in both major political parties.
Suddenly, It Was Bush’s War
There’s a simple explanation to the confusion being experienced by millions of Americans over the Democrats’ sudden comfort with military bloodshed: Democrats are liars.
In order to truly understand the laughable hypocrisy on display – and the dilemma Obama finds himself in now that President of Syria Bashar al-Assad has called his bluff by using chemical weapons against his own people – requires an accurate reading of recent history, a comprehension of the leftist ethic, and an awareness that Democrats are political throughout their bloodstreams.
These are people who will politicize anything – even war.
And that’s precisely what the entire Democratic Party did in 2003, just several months after the Democratic leadership led their ranks in authorizing force against Saddam Hussein.
In the early running of the Democratic presidential primary, the anti-war candidate Howard Dean – fortunate enough not to be holding Congressional office during the Iraq War Resolution – found himself garnering much of the support from his party’s radical base (people who oppose all wars, all the time).
Dean’s backing by the anti-war Left is what led to John Kerry’s infamous “flip-flop,” as he embarrassingly explained to the country, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [to fund the war], before I voted against it.”
The political and ideological momentum couldn’t be stopped, and the Democratic Party began to stake its short-term political success on a military failure (except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was kicked out of the Party for refusing to abandon the war effort).
The Left began to enact psychological warfare upon the nation’s morale, which included exploiting the abuses at Abu Ghraib, manipulating military mourners like Cindy Sheehan, suggesting that the war could be boiled down to “Haliburton’s greed” and “blood for oil,” and going so far as to accuse the commander-in-chief of manipulating intelligence in order to accrue public support for the Iraqi invasion.
Bush would ultimately be vindicated of such charges, but it mattered little. The Democrats had already spawned a crippling political divide that could only inspire America’s enemies, and get more American soldiers killed.
"This war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything,” Senator Harry Reid decided in 2007, well before the “surge strategy” had fully gotten off the ground.
The war had to be lost. By that point, the Democratic Party’s reputation depended on it.
For the good of the Democratic Party, America had to lose a war.
Who Is Hypocritical?
I don’t draft this column to confirm the wisdom behind the War in Iraq. In fact, as each day passes, we find more and more conservatives becoming less militaristic – not due to a lack of conviction in America’s moral standing, but simply because it is becoming more and more understood on the political Right that militarism represents unsustainable, and often unconstitutional, policy that is destined to be marred by grave and unpredictable errors.
This column’s purpose is only to expose the Democratic Party for what it has become – entirely unprincipled and dangerously power-hungry. A party of political zombies.
The same moral code just can’t be found within most conservatives – the base of the Republican Party. Although, liberals certainly will attempt to point out that Republicans, now that a Democrat is leading the cavalry, suddenly don’t wish to remove an oppressive Arab dictator.
But this wouldn’t represent hypocrisy as much as it would be a simple case of liberals taunting Republicans to live up to the war-mongering reputation that the Left has established for them – as they pretend that war is war, that circumstances don’t matter, and that no lessons have been learned during the past ten years in the Middle East.
It will hardly matter to Democrats that, in Iraq, America wasn’t forced to ally with al-Qaeda in order to dispose of Saddam Hussein. And the nation wasn’t $17 trillion in debt at that point either.
A Crisis In The Making
From the birth of the Bush Doctrine, its critics asked, “What are we going to do? Go to war with every country that could potentially threaten the United States?”
The answer was always, “No, of course not. But it would probably be to America’s advantage if rogue dictators around the world believed that to be the case.”
Maybe Democrats can finally see that a “cowboy” holding the reins of the American military can achieve diplomatic wonders.
Some recognizable adages are relevant here. America doesn’t always have to exercise its military might. We can still achieve “peace through strength.” The politics, of course, would have to stop at the “water’s edge.”
But these are propositions that just don’t work when forced to deal with something as twisted as the modern Democratic Party.
Sadly, Obama’s utter paralysis in the face of al-Assad’s gumption is an indication of just how weak of a position America holds. Even this Third-World punk is savvy enough to see just how divided, broke, and war-weary America currently is – which is precisely where Democrats wanted America to be starting in 2003.
America’s unfortunate showdown with Syria wasn’t just enhanced when Obama personally, publicly, and foolishly warned al-Assad last year that the use of chemical weapons would represent the crossing of a “red line.” Obama and the Democrats cleared the way for this crisis ten years ago.
This is the reaping of party treason.
Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is the author of The RI Republican: An Indictment of the Rhode Island Left.
Related Articles
- Travis Rowley: The Hate-Crime Hoax–A Liberal Pastime
- Travis Rowley: Democrats: Who’s Right? And Who’s a Jerk?
- Travis Rowley: Detroit: A Lesson In Failed Liberalism
- Travis Rowley: Left Wants Gays To Receive Magic Beans At Mass
- Travis Rowley: Obama’s Failed Vision of Government
- Travis Rowley: Political Blood
- Travis Rowley: Pro-Trayvon Liberals: Not Worth Talking To
- Travis Rowley: Race Hustling 101
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It