Defeat at any Price

 Here is a great article written by David Gelernter for The Weekly Standard. It pretty much sums up everything I have been trying to say about the far left, only it is done a hell of a lot better than I possibly could write. Let’s take a look at some of the excerpts.

Democrats at the hearings themselves found it impossible to look this capable, thoughtful, distinguished man in the face and endorse the MoveOn ad. But don’t get them wrong: Leading Dems had dumped on Petraeus often in the past, and were dumping furiously in preparation for the hearings. Petraeus is guilty of “carefully manipulating the statistics,” Senator Dick Durbin announced; in fact the general has “made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual” (in strict contradistinction to Majority Leader Harry Reid), said Majority Leader Harry Reid. Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden plunged their knives in also. The Democrats were scared for a reason. They worried that Petraeus would impress the country as dispassionate and serious–which he did. He called Bush’s troop surge no unqualified success, said that much work remains–but that Iraq has turned a corner; has achieved tangible, important results in its fight against terrorism and inter-sect violence since the surge began. It was a Democratic nightmare.

  That last sentence is so true, but so sad and disheartening at the same time. It ia a Democrat’s nightmare to hear that the war has turned a corner. They wanted and needed bad news, that is the position they have put themselves in, and I don’t pity them one bit. They want us to fail, so as far as I am concerned they can all rot in hell. They have put their political gain ahead of the security of the country and this is unacceptable to me to say the least.

America’s ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, had the harder job of reporting on political progress. He said, too, that much work remained; Iraq’s political health is bad in some ways, improving in others. But one fact towers above the rest like the ghost of the World Trade Center: If we stay put until the patient is stable, we face a tough job; if we panic and run, we face catastrophe.

Again this message was bad news for leading Democrats. But their reaction was just what it should’ve been, given that President Bush is the enemy–and, like the man said, politics ain’t beanbag. Surely it’s only natural for leading Democrats in Congress and the presidential campaign, and their vicious lap dogs on the web, to hope for the president’s policies to fail.

  The president is the enemy to the left, he is the world’s leading terrorist, so they sit there and hope his policies fail. I disagree with that last statement slightly though. They are not content hoping the president’s policies fail, they are actively seeking to ensure they fail. They are attempting to derail everything this president is trying to accomplish.

It’s time for Americans to ask some big questions. Do leading Democrats want America to win this war? Have they ever?

  My answer to these questions is no, and no. But why? The author goes on to say this:

Of course not–and not because they are traitors. To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

  We have lost our moral standards in the world according to these people. We need to be knocked off our high horse, our soapbox. America needs to suffer this defeat to humble us so we can regain our standing in the world. Seems backwards to me. I think we need to win this war decisively, that will sure as hell MAKE others respect us.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn’t, and everyone knew it wasn’t? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.

  Exactly, he was projecting the result he so hoped for. The fact that everyone knew he was making this up didn’t stop him from saying it because he wanted so badly for this to be true.

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements.

  The big three comandments of the far left, if you will. I have to agree with the author on this point also. Appeasement and pacifism are totally unacceptable to me. When you appease someone you sacrifice your ideals for the ideals of another. If you believe your ideals are worth fighting for, fight for them. As far as pacifism goes, I want world peace just as much as any Miss America contestant out there does. But the world is full of good and evil, and the left is unwilling to admit that there may actually be evil out there. Evil that cannot be talked to. Evil that only understands one thing, and that is violence. We can only have world peace when we eradicate evil, then and only then will the world be at peace.

Iraq has made everything fresh and new for the Democratic leadership. If it can paint Iraq as another Vietnam and relive its great triumphs of the 1970s, the damage done to the American psyche might be permanent. Americans might stop believing in liberty, equality, and democracy for all mankind and retreat to the revised European version: liberty, equality, and democracy (of a sort)–for us. Instead of believing Lincoln’s words–“with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in”–Americans might become self-satisfied and complacent pseudo-Europeans. Hollow men. Without Americanism, America joins the European robot republics that have no spiritual life and don’t even miss it.

Listen to what the Democrats are really saying. Consider what they actually want. And pray God they never get it.

  This is a must read article.