Is This Political Blackmail?

Playing politics is nothing new in Washington. In fact, it is something that we've come to expect from both political parties. And I guess there are a few things that get done that way when nothing else will work. But there are some issues where politics should be set aside and doing the right thing should be paramount.

A story appeared yesterday saying that some Republican congressmen have threatened to pull their support of war funding unless President Bush backs off on the illegal immigration bill. Somebody please tell me that they were misquoted; that this was just a big misunderstanding. Surely they're not planning to withdraw funding for our troops in harm's way simply to gain leverage in the debate over the amnesty legislation.

Now don't misunderstand me; I am wholly opposed to this bill that would grant legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. I think I've made that clear in some of my earlier columns. If we're going to do this, why don't we just pronounce all other lawbreakers in our country innocent, as well? Drug dealers, you get a free pass. Prostitutes, you're in the clear. Bank robbers, just keep the money. After all, you risked your life to pull off your illegal undertaking, and you should be rewarded for your bravery. Besides, you did it to help your family.

Our lawmakers in Washington wouldn't dare decriminalize 99% of all criminal activity in this country (well, most of them wouldn't). So why do many feel, along with our President, that illegal immigration is the one crime that's not really a crime? Are they afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot? With all due respect to our national leaders, this has nothing to do with race or bigotry. It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong (not to mention the national security implications behind it all). With immigration, as with everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. We shouldn't be rewarding these lawbreakers who are doing things the wrong way.

Having said all of that, I must admit, however, that I don't think this issue is worth sacrificing support for our troops. If the only way this bill can be defeated is by using our troops as pawns in the political process, then the cost is too high. What will be next?

Today we've conveyed to the president our intention of withholding funds for orphaned children in this country. Unless he votes with us, we're cutting off money for the kids. Maybe next time he'll think twice before he supports some legislation that we don't agree with.

Absurd? Not much more so than threatening to hold our troops hostage in a political power play. It's just as wrong when the Republicans do it as it is when the Democrats do it. And all who would participate in such a thing should be ashamed.

You don't have to read much of what I write to get a sense of which way I lean politically. More often than not, I agree with the Republicans. But I'm not going to walk in lockstep with everything they say when my conscience would dictate another direction. I'm deeply disappointed with our president over his support of this amnesty bill. I'm equally disappointed with those Republican congressmen who have shown a willingness to play politics with our troops in harm's way.

Let's just pray that this bill will be defeated without having to use our fighting men and women as tools in the political process. They deserve much better.

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.

A Novel Idea For Supporting The Troops

It has always been a moving experience. I’ve been fortunate enough in my lifetime to see it firsthand on several different occasions. But for whatever reason, the last time I witnessed it, emotion took over and I couldn’t hold back the tears. What I’m referring to is the changing of the guard at The Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Watching these elite sentinels going about their duty, I was reminded of what a privilege it is to live in the United States of America. And I became overwhelmed as I thought of the supreme sacrifice that many have made so that I might live free. As I walked away that day, I voiced a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing my gratitude to God for giving me the blessing of being born an American.

Yesterday we celebrated Memorial Day in our country. I would be lying if I told you I spent the whole day honoring those who gave their lives for this country. But I did pause for a few moments yesterday to remember and reflect. To me, that’s what Memorial Day is all about. Not everybody, apparently, shares my feelings.

For presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards, Memorial Day is a time to protest an unpopular war in Iraq. He seems to think that a public demonstration against the war on Memorial Day is appropriate, but only after first “taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen” (as if that will make it ok). Mr. Edwards believes that an anti-war rally on this sacred holiday is the best way, in his words, “to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.”

How ironic that he wants to honor the troops serving today, when he has personally expressed his support for a bill that would cut the funding to those in harm’s way. That’s essentially what the Congress tried to do by sending a bill to the President linking money for the troops with a timetable to get out of Iraq. And isn’t that a great idea? Publish our plans on how we’re going to retreat for the whole world to see. I’m no expert on military strategy, but that doesn’t sound like a course of action that will support the troops. And by passing a war-spending bill that the President had no choice but to veto, the Congress was, indirectly, cutting off funding for our servicemen and women.

Yet John Edwards actually had the nerve to claim that President Bush was, and I quote, “vetoing Congress's bill that would support the troops.” He’s got to be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. Imagine if every divorced father who pays child support in America accepted this reasoning: “I’m going to support my child by withdrawing all funding.” And you think we have a problem with dead-beat dads now, just wait until all the divorced fathers adopt the Edwards plan. Some may even use it as a defense in court:

Your honor, I’m supporting my children in the same way that John Edwards and the Democrats in Congress are supporting the troops. I’m giving them nothing!

It’s not hard to see the inherent problems with the ideas of John Edwards and other like-minded Democrats. I’m sure they have the best of intentions, but faulty plans usually lead to disaster despite the loftiest objectives.

And now that Memorial Day has come and gone, what was the result of Mr. Edwards' call for anti-war protests? Three of today's headlines immediately jump out at me:

-Vandals deface veterans’ graves with swastikas in Washington state.

-Teens arrested for tossing eggs at color guard in Massachusetts.

-Vandals in Philadelphia spray swastikas on American Legion building.

I’m not saying that these three incidents were directly related to John Edwards’ call for protests. In fact, they probably weren’t. But when Mr. Edwards suggests that Memorial Day is an appropriate time to demonstrate against public policy concerning American troops in harm’s way, he gives a certain legitimacy to those vandals (if only in their own minds) that they would not have had otherwise.

Mr. Edwards, you were wrong. You should apologize to our nation, to our soldiers in harm’s way, and to all the families who have lost loved ones that were fighting for our freedom.

There are 365 days in a year. Whether you’re for the war or against it, Memorial Day should be about those who’ve given their lives for this country. Pick out another day from the 364 remaining and protest on that date, but leave the last Monday in May alone.