Democrats: Chardonnay-Swilling Surrender Junkies
- Democrats: Chardonnay-Swilling Surrender Junkies
Written by Raymond Kraft
Saturday, October 07, 2006
A week ago on Fox News Sunday former President William Jefferson Clinton ginned up his own John Kerry moment, while wagging his finger like a puppy dog's tail in Chris Wallace's face, "I ordered the CIA to get bin Laden, before I ordered them not to."
Okay, I paraphrase Bill Clinton, but that is the gist and substance of what he said. He ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden, and then, when the chances came, he either failed to give the go ahead or ordered them not to kill him.
"I tried," he said, "I tried. I failed. But I tried. I really did."
A week later on the CBS Early Show former CIA Osama bin Laden unit chief, Michael Scheuer, stated that Bill Clinton had "eight to ten chances" to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, confirming earlier reports to the same effect by Colonel Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football for Clinton in the White House. Scheuer's statements were blunt - that Osama bin Laden is alive today because Bill Clinton failed to make the decision to take him down. Not once. Not twice. As many as eight or ten times.
So the legacy, the truth Bill Clinton cannot hide, cannot evade, cannot cover up, and cannot run from, no matter how he tries, is that when the cards were on the table, Bill Clinton folded. Every time. When he had Osama bin Laden in his sights, he got buck fever, he couldn't pull the trigger. Every time. Yes, he can make excuses, he can say he didn't have a "legal reason" to hold him. But that doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton could have, and he didn't. As many as eight or ten times, he could have, but he didn't.
When Bill Clinton faced Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton surrendered. Every time.
American Democrats have failed to face up to the consequences of Clinton's surrender to Osama bin Laden. As a result of Bill Clinton's surrenders, 9/11 happened. And 3,000 people died at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania. Democrats have spent most of the last three years demanding that George Bush accept responsibility and apologize for the mistakes they say he has made in Iraq. But will Democrats ever demand that Bill Clinton accept responsibility and apologize for the mistakes he made, each time he failed to make the decision to nail bin Laden? - for his sins of omission? For his failure to faithfully carry out his duty to protect America from foreign enemies, as Commander in Chief?
Bill Clinton went to Africa, once, to apologize for the brutality of slavery that was committed by Americans long dead, against Africans long dead. It's easy to apologize for the crimes of others, and it means nothing. It puts nothing of one's self on the line. But it takes character to apologize for one's own failures. Will Democrats ever demand that Bill Clinton apologize to the 3,000 who died on 9/11 because of Bill Clinton's mistakes? Will Democrats ever demand that Bill Clinton apologize to the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children, of the 3,000 who died on 9/11 because of Bill Clinton's serial surrenders?
Will Bill Clinton ever apologize?
Rather than facing reality and demanding accountability and apologies from Bill Clinton, America's Democrats have exalted him to Patron Saint of the Democratic Party. They despise George Bush, who is leading America's war on Islamic terrorism, but they love Bill Clinton, the man who surrendered to Osama bin Laden. They would rather surrender than act in the defense of America, the defense of others, or even the defense of themselves.
They are infatuated with Bill Clinton, the man who surrendered.
In the 2004 election campaign, the Democrats' presidential nominee, Massachusetts Senator John Francis Kerry, who served in Vietnam, declaimed: "I will fight the war on terror better and smarter!"
But John Kerry never told us what "better and smarter" really means. And in the two years since, he still hasn't told us what "better and smarter" really means. Those are nice words, it's a fine idea, but unless he can articulate specifically how he would fight the war on terror "better and smarter," what changes in military and political strategy and tactics he would implement, and what they would achieve, those words mean nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing but puffery.
This raises two possibilities that Democrats have failed to face:
(1) John Kerry really does know how to fight the war on terror "better and smarter," but he's keeping this superior knowledge to himself. If this is true, then American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying every day because John Kerry has refused to tell us how to fight the war better and smarter. If this is so, are Democrats going to demand that John Kerry take responsibility and apologize to the men and women who have died because he won't tell a Republican administration how to fight the war "better and smarter?" Will Democrats demand that he apologize to the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters and buddies of those who died, because John Kerry won't let anyone in on his secret strategy?
If John Kerry really knows how to fight the war "better and smarter," but he won't tell, then John Kerry is, in effect, choosing, deliberately, with premeditation and deliberation, for nothing but his own political ambition, to surrender the lives of Americans to Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, to the Iraqi insurgents, to the Islamic Jihad. This is not merely a surrender, but it is the surrender of American lives, and Iraqi lives, and perhaps even an American victory, that might be achieved sooner and at less cost in lives and money if John Kerry would come out of the closet and tell us how to do it better and smarter. How to defeat the Jihad and save American lives. He would rather see more American soldiers die than give aid and comfort to George Bush.
(2) John Kerry really has no idea how to fight this war "better and smarter," and when he said he did, he was just lying. Lying to get elected.
Twenty-four years ago the same John Kerry, who had served in Vietnam, testified before a predominantly Democratic Congress, claiming that American soldiers in Vietnam systematically committed atrocities, allegations that proved untrue, allegations that slandered and libeled, defamed and insulted, the vast majority of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, who had served honorably and often with conspicuous gallantry in Vietnam. He defamed the memories and sacrifices of the 58,000 Americans who died there. Persuaded by John Kerry's dramatic testimony, and that of others of his ilk, a Democratic Congress decided to surrender Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to the North Vietnamese Communists, cutting off American support for those countries' efforts to defend themselves from communist aggression.
According to Lt. Commander Mark W. Woodruff, (Royal Australian Navy), author of Unheralded Victory, "For many of those who fought in the Vietnam War, theirs was the simple but honest pride they felt in doing their job well. Regardless of the war's rights or wrongs, full credit must be given to them for their magnificent performance under those difficult circumstances. In their victory, which to this day remains unheralded, they annihilated forever the Viet Cong and soundly defeated the North Vietnamese Army."
The Vietnam War was not lost in the jungles and savannahs of Vietnam, but in the chambers of a Democratic Congress that, urged by John Kerry and others like him who preferred an American surrender to an American victory, surrendered. As a result, several million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians died as the communists overran Southeast Asia, and hundreds of thousands more spent years in "re-education" camps and prisons, while hundreds of thousands more became refugees.
Will the Democrats ever demand that John Kerry accept responsibility and apologize to the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, living and dead, whom he insulted and defamed before Congress in 1972? Will he apologize to the fathers, mothers, widows, widowers, brothers, sisters, children, of those who died? Will he apologize to the South Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, who became refugees, prisoners, who were tortured, who died, because America, at the urging of John Kerry, abandoned them?
Rather than calling John Kerry to account for his advocacy of surrender to North Vietnam, and its devastating consequences for millions of Asians, America's Democrats have rewarded him by electing him to the Senate, several times, and by nominating him for the presidency. The necessary inference is that American Democrats prefer surrender to victory.
Liberals have established a consistent and conspicuous pattern of patronizing, supporting, and electing surrenderers, and the advocates of surrender, rather than victors and the advocates of victory. They rally only to the white flag.
The World Can't Wait
As I write, an organization known as WorldCantWait is staging a number of anti-Bush, anti-War protests across America. On September 20, 2006, WorldCantWait published a full page ad in USA Today (go here). In it, WorldCantWait makes the following claims, forthrightly intended to sabotage the President and America's war on Islamic terrorism.
"YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq . . YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people . . . YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy where a narrow hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule . . . YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance . . ."
"People look at all this and think of Hitler - and rightly so. The Bush regime is out to remake society very quickly in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now, the future of the world is in our hands . . . There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster . . ."
This ad is signed by the following Democrats in Congress: US Rep. John Conyers, US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, US Rep. Major Owens, US Rep. Bobby Rush, US Rep. Maxine Waters. This ad is also signed by, among many others: Edward Asner, Russell Banks, Harry Belafonte, Ward Churchill, Daniel Ellsberg, Jane Fonda, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jessica Lange, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Sean Penn, Rev. Al Sharpton, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheen, Gloria Steinem, Gore Vidal . . . "and thousands more who have already joined us."
So far, I have not heard of a single Democrat in Congress, or elsewhere in public life, speak a single word to denounce or even distance him or herself from WorldCantWait. Not Bill Clinton, not John Kerry, not Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy, not Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, or Harry Reid. Not one.
Many of these same leading Democrats demand a "new direction" in Iraq, but, like John Kerry, who has never told us what "smarter and better" really means, they never tell us what their demand for a "new direction" really means.
There are, basically, three options in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the War on Islamic Terrorism.
We can "stay the course," acknowledging that this is a trans-national, multi-generational war, not against a country (we are at war in Iraq, but not with Iraq), but against a militant political-religious ideology for which savagery and terrorism are the tactics of choice, and which blends into the local populace wherever it goes. Its long-term strategy is to inflict the "death of a thousand cuts" on Western, Euro-American civilization, and spread Islam and Sharia everywhere, as explained by Abu Bakr Naji in The Management of Savagery (translated by William McCants -- go here for pdf file). The Management of Savagery is an al Qaeda manifesto on Islamist goals and tactics.
We can increase the war effort in the Middle East, as some think will be necessary, and as recent developments in Iran and Pakistan may produce a nuclear-armed state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, or two, in the imminent future.
We can declare victory and bring the troops home (or redeploy them to Okinawa, of all places), as many prominent Liberals and Democrats such as John Murtha and Patrick Leahy demand, hoping that the Islamo-Nazi Jihad will somehow magically disappear if we do.
I see no sign of Democratic support for options (1) or (2), and forthright Democratic support for option (3) - the option of surrender to the growing impetus of the imperialist ambitions of the Islamo-Nazi Jihadism that threatens, or promises, a "theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Islamic fundamentalism will rule," that will be infinitely more oppressive to non-Muslims than any "conservative theocracy of Christian fundamentalism" the WorldCantWait Democrats can imagine.
Anglo-American, European, Western Civilization is built on the idea that people have, or should have, as a natural right, four fundamental freedoms:
These freedoms are explicitly declared and protected in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The other freedoms specified in our Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of self-defense, are necessary implications of these four essential freedoms, consequential rights necessary to protect the four essential ones. These freedoms are the heart and soul of what we know as Liberal Democracy, the form of government in which all adult citizens can vote, and in which each individual's freedom to think, worship, vote, and work, is optimized and protected.
The militant, puritanical Islamic culture of Jihadism is diametrically opposed to each of these four freedoms:
Intellectual freedom - you can think whatever you want, as long as it is consistent with Islam. But if you criticize Islam, as Salman Rushdie did in The Satanic Verses, a fatwa is issued for your murder. In Jihadism, as with Nazism and Communism, intellectual dissent is not tolerated.
Religious freedom - you can practice any religion you want, as long as it is Islam. If you refuse to convert to Islam, you must pay a tax for your life, for the right to live as a second-class citizen. If you convert from Islam to any other religion, you must be killed.
Political freedom - militant Islam is openly opposed to Democracy, which it holds is contrary to Islam, a government of man, rather than a government of God. Militant, puritanical Islam is the complete merger of religion, government, and culture. It is a totalitarian theocracy. There is no separation of church and state - the religion and the state are one. You can hold any political beliefs you wish, as long as they are consistent with Islam.
Economic freedom - you cannot engage in any business, trade, or profession, inconsistent with Islam. If, or when, Islam becomes the dominant political force in Europe, we may see, for instance, a thousand years of winemaking traditions and millions of hectares of vineyards, all the great growths, and all the others, destroyed, for the making of wine is contrary to Islam. No more cognac, or champagne. No more ham, bacon, sausage, prosciutto. The selling of books contrary to Islam would be prohibited. The production of movies and TV shows and music and magazines contrary to Islam would be prohibited. Much of Europe's art, especially religious art, would be destroyed, as contrary to Islam. Already, recently, at least one opera in Germany has been cancelled for fear of offending Islam. The victory of Jihadism would usher in a new Dark Ages of intellectual, artistic, and economic contraction.
America's Democrats have failed to face up to the reality of the world that will come if the West's war with militant Islam is lost, if Europe surrenders, if America surrenders, if the Jihad emerges victorious. The world of social, intellectual, religious, and political liberty that America's Liberals and Democrats claim as their own would end with Sharia. America's Democrats, the champions of gay rights and sexual libertarianism, do not face up to the reality that the penalty for homosexuality and extra-marital sex under Sharia is death. They do not face up to the fact that in puritanical Islam, women are not equal. They do not face up to the fact that in puritanical Islam, religious intolerance, discrimination, and bigotry, are ideological imperatives.
America's Democrats, drunk on their lust for political power at any price, are blinded to the reality that the price of freedom from the totalitarian barbarians that come in a new guise in every generation, Hitlerian Nazism, Stalinist Communism, and now Islamo-Nazi Jihadism, is the constant willingness to do what is necessary to defend our freedoms, and sometimes that price is war. Not surrender, but victory. America's Democrats, chasing the chimerical dream of a world peace that has never been, and will never be, have made themselves the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st Century, who, seeking "peace in our time" at all costs, would rather surrender the Middle East, then Europe, then perhaps America, to the militant threats and demands of Jihadism, rather than fight for the freedom of others, to protect their own.
America will not win or lose the War on Terror, whether fought in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, because its armed forces cannot win. America will ultimately win the War on Terror, if it does, because Americans, Democrats and Republicans, muster up the will to do so. Or America will ultimately lose the War on Terror, if it does, because Americans, Democrats and Republicans, fail to sustain the will to win. America will either choose to win, or America will choose to surrender. By the end of this century, or perhaps by the end of this decade, either Western Civilization, with its freedoms and democracies, will remain, or puritanical Islam, Jihadism, will remain. But not both. One will win, the other will surrender. One will live, the other will die. The one with the greatest will to live, will live.
It may be a stereotype to describe Democrats as "Chardonnay Swilling Surrender Junkies" (which, quite coincidentally, rhymes perfectly with the tag some insensitive souls have pinned on the French as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys"), but I have a certain image of Liberals, based partly on personal experience, sipping Chardonnay with brie on baguettes, deploring the horror, stupidity, and depravity of George Bush.
But it seems that many, or most, of America's Democrats see the War in Iraq as "another Vietnam." If they regain control of Congress, or the White House, or both, they seem determined to turn that assessment into a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are addicted to the seductive euphoria of the ephemeral "peace" that surrender brings, for a time. They are surrender junkies.
They so covet power for themselves, and the illusion of a "peace" that cannot last, that, rather than join a Republican President, George W. Bush, in a determined war to defeat the anti-Liberal, anti-Democratic, Islamic Jihad, they would rather surrender their own future and freedom, surrender America's future and freedom, and ultimately surrender the entire edifice of Western Civilization, Judeo-Christian Civilization, to an aggressive, intolerant, imperialist, militant, fundamentalist, terrorist Islamic theocracy that will ultimately destroy every freedom Liberal Democrats claim to be for.
America has polarized into two camps:
Republicans and other conservatives, who would rather fight than surrender.
Democrats and other Liberals, who would rather surrender than fight.
" . . . choose well,
your choice is brief,
and yet endless . . "
About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]