Blame It All On Bush

When is good news really bad news? Answer: When you’re a liberal and the good news is concerning a victory in the war on terror. The last thing the Democrats want to hear about as they are gearing up for next year’s presidential election is that our country may be actually doing something right. And when there is the slightest hint of good news, the left-wing playbook calls for an all-out assault on President Bush.

Last week’s news about a thwarted terrorist plot to blow up the jet fuel pipeline at JFK airport should have been acknowledged by Democrats as a victory in the war on terror. That, however, might make George Bush look good, which in turn might make Republicans look good, which in turn might lead to the Democrats losing next year’s presidential election. So the only recourse they have is to blame the whole thing on President Bush and his “misguided” war in Iraq. In other words, they continue to blame America first.

Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week, Congressman Jack Murtha was asked about the terrorist plot. His response:

Our presence in Iraq, our occupation of Iraq, gives (the terrorists) the inspiration…I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people to take on the United States…Our presence in Iraq is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. So this is the problem that we have.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did have the presence of mind to mention to the congressman that, “We did have 9-11 before we went into Iraq” (not bad for a former Clinton advisor). Murtha’s response was, “Yeah, we had 9-11, but that came from Afghanistan.” So that means that a terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan can be blamed on the terrorists, but a terrorist plot that came from Al-Qaeda in Iraq is obviously the fault of George Bush. Does anybody other than me find that reasoning absolutely ludicrous?

Democrats act as if Muslim extremists in Iraq had a deep love and appreciation for the United States before we ever went to war. I hate to break it to them, but we were hated just as ferociously when Bill Clinton was president as we are now with President Bush. And these guys who plotted this latest threat weren’t even in Iraq; they were operating right here in the land of the free.

Speaking of that, shouldn’t this be a signal to President Bush that his support of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants is not a great idea? Do we really want to give provisional legal status to a group of people who are, by definition, here illegally? Should it be the policy of this great country to reward those who break our laws? Will that ever be a good idea? Sorry to keep asking questions; inquiring minds want to know. But, I digress.

Senator Barack Obama was asked about the terrorist plot during Sunday night’s Democratic debate. His response:

But the fact of the matter is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions. Primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battle to deal with Al-Qaeda, but in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq.

Once again, the liberals are convinced that fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq were at one time totally at peace with America’s place in the world. They would have us believe that it was only after Operation Iraqi Freedom that terrorists were recruited and trained in Iraq. Murtha, Obama and other liberals believe we should be ashamed of ourselves for defending freedom and trying to prevent more terrorist attacks on our soil. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sought to charge President Bush with treason for having instigated this latest terrorist plot.

So where do we go from here? The Democrats first need to understand that you can’t deal with a problem by pretending that it doesn’t exist. The city where I live, for instance, has seen a steady increase in violent crime in recent years. Should our law enforcement officials work aggressively to arrest the offenders and prevent more offenses in the future, or should they take a hands-off approach for fear that we might incite more violence if we make the criminals mad? For me, that’s a no-brainer. But then again, I’m not a liberal, so my brain works a little bit differently.

Another thing the Democrats need to do is stop playing partisan politics with national security. When there is genuinely good news in relation to the fight against terrorism, it shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to attack the president and Republicans. Isn’t this at least one issue where we can all stand side-by-side, knowing that we are united for the defense of our country in spite of other areas where we vehemently disagree? It should be, and I believe it can be. But as long as winning elections is the most important thing, the sad truth is that it never will be.