We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

No Joy in Demville
by Vincent Fiore
14 August 2003

Wish as they might, there will be no "quagmire" in Iraq for Democrats to break into song over.


Before the morticians makeup was barely dry on the pride of Saddam's loins, the liberal echo chamber that is the New York Times swiftly ran an op-ed, taking the cue from their progressive allies in Washington. Entitled "Better Alive Than Dead," by writer Sandra Mackey, the op-ed laments the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two murderous, incubi-like sons, Uday and Qusay, arguing the point that alive, the Hussein boys would have been of greater value. Ms. Mackey calls the deaths of these wholesale monsters a "tactical victory," but not a "strategic one." But that seems more like wishful thinking on her part, as her article does not withstand the scrutiny of a public fully informed of the facts. While shedding some light on the rise of Saddam and his Baathist party, the rest of her commentary proved to be the usual captious twaddle that envelops the left so completely these days. Laying out one scenario after another that depicts how wrong the U.S. may have been in sending to hell a pair of doorkeepers, not once in 800 plus words can Sandra Mackey personally bring herself to say that the demise of the brothers Hussein may have been an unqualified good thing.

But it's really nothing new to anyone remotely paying attention to the political discourse between the two major parties. To overly simplify, one looks at the glass half full, and the other looks at it half empty. One party believes in the innate goodness that America has displayed since her founding, the other party believes in an America that is devoutly unfair in its dealings at home and abroad. One Party dauntlessly protects and projects the ideals and identity of America, while the other Party maliciously undermines these same ideas by continuously flaying her elected leader at every opportunity, even in a war footing. By now, the practical reader has figured out just who is looking up from the bottom of the glass, and sinking ever further.

As Americans, we consider ourselves a savvy, yet down to earth people. We also know a con job when we see it. While media elites and Democrats cry in calamitous alarm about the new "quagmire" in Iraq, the public knows better. As war, any war, cannot be a seamless affair, the war in Iraq has generally gone well. The utilities are back up on line, better than before, along with the oil wells and refineries starting to export 1 million barrels a day. A governing council consisting of 25 members representative of the country's ethnic makeup, Iraq's first, has recently been recognized by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Predictably, as rocky a road to Democracy that Iraq is on is bound to have its unpredictable potholes. And along the road to freedom comes the deaths of freedom's keepers, the American military.

To date we have lost some 250 men in operation Iraqi Freedom and the peace effort thereafter. Though often said, and keenly felt, it is always one too many. But in truth, when using history as your guide, the trials and travails of this war have not claimed nearly as many as have other wars. For perspective, which the Democratic Party needs a good dose of, nearly 5000 men perished between the sunrise and sunset of D-day. In these terms, operation Iraqi Freedom has been a triumph of the ages. There will be more losses to come, but not enough to call it off and go home. Wish as they might, there will be no "quagmire" in Iraq for Democrats to break into song over. For nearly two and a half years, Democrats have displayed an all-consuming hatred for the Bush Administration, notably for its leader. Like a rash that spreads when scratched, this hatred has spread to the point of consuming all nine Democratic hopefuls for the office of President, and has installed the deeply radical left of the party as the banner carriers into political battle. Democrats, once a party of action, have metastasized into the party of reactionaries.

On the very day Uday and Qusay were killed, the new McGovernites that will lead the party into 2004 let it be known that there was no joy in Demville.

Howard Dean: "I think in general the ends do not justify the means."

Richard Gephardt: "Foreign policy isn't a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones, and then everything fades to black." It is "machismo" and "arrogant unilateralism." "I believe George Bush has left us less safe and secure than we were four years ago."

John Kerry: "The question is whether our diplomacy will be equally up to the task in assembling a coalition to create a real and lasting peace."

The above is the future of the Democratic Party, in a free falling spiral toward obscurity.

A caveat to all the naysaying Democrats are doing over Iraq is the effect it has on our troops. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) recently visited with wounded marines in Bethesda. Upon talking to an injured sergeant, Rep. Pence reports, "I think the criticism is reaching these guys from what they're telling me." With the exception of ensconced liberal shibboleths, who find fault in every waking moment of life already, the unremitting Democratic litany of supposed failure via the Bush Administration looks to derail the country as a whole in every issue Bush deals with. And as with Iraq, it is done strictly for political gain, without any attention given to the very real consequences it can have.

Since President Bush has come into office, it has been one real or fabricated crisis after another. Terrorism, war, bad economy, strained relations with allies, corporate scandals, on and on.  But to Bush's credit, he has met them head on, and has crafted a policy to deal with each one. Obviously, he could not expect any help from the opposite side of the aisle, but neither should he except the lowbrow brayings of a party that is not only out of power, but more clearly than ever in its history, out of ideas. There are no solutions from liberals, only condemnation of those who seek solutions. It is refreshing to see the President begin to counterpunch a bit against the media-imposed Iraqi quagmire, and it will be even better still when Saddam Hussein is captured or killed, and the mystery of the WMDs will come to light.

In the city of Boston, Massachusetts, the Democratic Party will hold its National Convention the week of July 26, 2004, at the Fleet Center. By then, the country will know who has won the fight for the party's soul. As it stands, the uber-liberals are running away with it, while the Joe Liebermans and the people at the DLC look on in horror at the Deans and Kucinich's that define the party today. Though less shrill than their cousins at the DNC, even these self-defined "centrist" Democrats have problems basking in the victories America has so far achieved at home and abroad, and suffer through an identity crisis of sorts. From now till Election Day, the overt criticism will only intensify, as, like a drowning man, democrats will flail for any issue to grab on to.  In the doom and gloom world of Democratic politics, it might be a good idea to put them all on suicide watch.  Such is the catastrophe of life under a successful Conservative President.

Vincent Fiore is a freelance writer.

Email Vincent Fiore

Send this Article to a Friend