Thursday, February 15, 2007

I just don't understand...

...much of anything, when you get right down to it.

Congress, rushing to get away for its week-long version of our one-day holiday, is dead set on passing meaningless resolutions telling George Bush he blew it in Iraq, and they don't like it. But, of course, they "support the troops." They're also making a big point of waving their fingers at Bush while saying "don't you even think of attacking Iran!"

Of course they are also praising him for finally getting the message and coming to an "agreement" with North Korea, even though said agreement is phony as the proverbial three-dollar bill.

Even if you believe Bush has made a horrible mess of the whole Iraq thing -- and I do, believe me -- do you see something wrong in all this?

In a word: Vietnam.

We got into a bad situation there -- thank you, Ike and JFK, who started the whole ugly ball rolling -- and it was made worse by the antiwar movement's tactics. The North Vietnamese knew damn well that they didn't have to negotiate with the U.S.; they could see that Hanoi Jane Fonda, the antiwar members of Congress and the media were doing all the work for them.

Likewise, the terrorists in the Middle East, seeing history repeating itself, know that all they have to do is wait. Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, John Kerry, the late Teddy Kennedy and the New York Times will ensure that they succeed.

We are, in essence, caught between a rock and a hard place, and the majority of the blame falls on George Bush, who had his personal, twisted reasons for going after Saddam Hussein. The bilge he spews about "bringing democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan just doesn't wash.

But turning our backs on the situation now and running is sheer folly.

I would have some respect for Congress if they demanded something other than abject retreat. If they told Bush they wanted an end to the nonsense that included some real security for this nation, that would be laudable. Simply making political points by lining up to whine about Bush's idiotic behavior is cowardice, pure and simple.

A sizable percentage of the world understands only strength. They use "negotiations" to their advantage; they have no intention of living up to the promises our "civilized" government drones find meaningful.

This is the one thing Americans -- especially those who "represent" us in Washington -- do not understand. It is the equivalent of "negotiating" with a rabid dog. The dog may wag its tail, but will, in time, bite. That's its nature.

Kim Jong-Il is probably laughing tonight. So, wherever the hell he is, is Osama Bin Laden. Certainly, those who would strap explosives to their bodies are even now thinking about juicy new targets. All of them see weakness in Washington.

And so do I.

The votes in Congress are safe for those who want to run away from Bush's mess. They can, and will, blame him for the collapse of the situation, even though if they force a retreat, it will, in reality, be their fault.

I'm sorry to say it -- it perhaps says something not-too-nice about me -- but I am far more worried about the loss of an American life than I am about the Iraqis, Iranians and North Koreans. If a mushroom cloud over Tehran allows a single American to live who might otherwise die in a terrorist attack, so be it.

That drastic action would not be necessary if we negotiated from a position of strength, which is, despite the attempts of the anti-military forces in Congress, possible. It is the dream-stupefied fools in Washington -- whether in the White House, State Department or Congress -- who don't understand that.

Reversing the situation would involve reversing nearly 60 years of idiocy in Washington. From the Korean war to today, we have listened to the "voices of reason" who thought our enemies would respond positively to sweet reason and lots of monetary assistance. From the Korean war to today, we have ample proof that the course advocated by the fools in Washington is a failure.

My only hope is that we survive as a nation long enough to hold Bush, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, McCain and the rest to account for their stupidity.

The only "death" I long for is the death of partisan politics when the security of our nation is involved.

5 comments:

lowandslow said...

Seems like we're the only nation in the whole world who negotiates "in good faith." So why bother? I say let's honor Israel's "wish list", then let them deal with Iran's nuclear threat. They never seemed to be too conderned about political correctness.

MrScribbler said...

Gotta agree with you, l&s. No nation can offer security to any other nation without protecting itself first.

Sunny said...

My brother was in Vietnam, and this sure reminds me of 'another Vietnam.'

John said...

They're sacrificing reason for political payback. It is too screwed up to believe.

Matt said...

This is only "another Vietnam" because Congress is making it that way by turning around and running like hell. How many terrorists have we destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan lately?

The mainstream media is a huge part of the problem too. Whenever we take out a prominent terrorist leader, they're all asking whether we prepared their body in accordance with Muslim Law and all that.

How about when those American contractors were beheaded, dragged through the streets, hung from a bridge, and burned? Was that in accordance with any type of law known to man?

I can't believe how many traitors walk among us, who label the US as the bad guy all the time.