Just when we thought we knew all of the Democrat spin-positions, Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) gave us a new one! On Fox News Sunday, Ms. Harmon told Chris Wallace that the US’ killing of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi means that we should now pull our troops out. Democrats are truly an amazing group.
In the past, Democrat leaders have told us, over and over and over again, that we are losing the war in Iraq—and that we should pull out troops out of that country. Now, they tell us that the killing of Zarqawi, and the other raids which commenced thereafter, show a victory over one of the terrorists’ major symbols, so—we should pull our troops out of that country.
Democrats are now telling us that we need to pull out of Iraq, whether we are winning or losing. They’ve got it covered both ways! Don’t you find that bizarre? I certainly do. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a political party that both relishes and revels in the thought of defeat as much as does today’s Democrat Party. Waving their white flags, even in the face of victory, actually seems to give its members a strong boost of adrenalin! Can anyone say “mental disorder”?
On Chris Wallace’s FoxNews Sunday, Rep. Jane, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Wallace: “While we’re part of the political solution [in Iraq], we’re part of the military problem.” Despite the fact that Harmon’s statement may seem “profound” to some (although no intelligent people I know), it’s simply Democrat double-speak. Ms. Harmon, there would be no “political solution” in Iraq was it not for the US military. The opposite of being a “problem”, the US military in conjunction with the coalition forces in Iraq is the only reason Iraq has any political options at all.
This is not your father’s Democrat Party, folks, and it probably hasn’t been since the late 1960’s. Former Democrat Presidents John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt must be spinning in their graves. Has anyone recently checked their burial sites for any odd quake activity?
To people having the ability to think and accurately discern truth, it is generally recognized that pacifism and appeasement fosters neither liberty nor freedom. Conciliation to those who would destroy said liberties and freedoms encourages suppression. Democrats Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy understood that. They were warriors who recognized the real price attached to freedom—just as did Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, George HW Bush and now President George W. Bush. These men also understood that the promise of liberty is a false one, unless it is backed up by the willingness and ability to fight and die for it. Yet Democrats Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy et al continue to tell us that our troops in Iraq are “in harm’s way”. Uh—that’s where soldiers are supposed to be. That’s their purpose, duty and mission. Holy smokes! Were any of these individuals ever taught what warfare actually entails? If so, the lesson fell on deaf ears and blind eyes. I would have thought that at least Murtha and Kerry, who have each personally claimed “war hero” status, would understand this fairly simplistic and self-evident reality.
However, these are members of the crop of “New Democrats” who view our US military, the courageous and dedicated men and women who fight and die to keep the rest of us safe, as “the problem”. These New Democrats are also bound and determined to turn this war into Viet Nam. Of course, it’s not. All of the men and women currently in the US Armed Forces are volunteers. For our Democrat friends, that means they chose to enlist. No one forced them to do so. Also, the vast majority of our soldiers choose to re-up for another tour of duty.
But, modern-day Democrats continue to change the definitions of both words and concepts—so that they now hold the opposite of their intended meanings. For example, Al Gore didn’t lose the 2000 presidential election. Instead, Democrats tell us “it was stolen”. Of course, it wasn’t. In fact, it was the most heavily scrutinized of all presidential election in the history of the USA. “Hanging chad” is now used as a noun, verb and adjective! And John Kerry didn’t “lose” the 2008 presidential election to President Bush. Again, it was “stolen”. This time, Democrats tell us there was a “conspiracy” in Ohio to “steal the votes”. This claim was also investigated ad nauseam—with no “theft” found. Still, they persist. Well—if Democrats can redefine “lose” to mean “stolen”, is it any wonder that they are now attempting to transform the meaning of “defeat” to mean “victory”—and vice versa? Following that illogic, it’s not a stretch for them to develop the peculiar and wacky notion that to “win” one has to “retreat”. It seems apparent that they are also working on a new definition of winning. I suspect the New Democrat Dictionary will contain the following: “winning: to lose; retreat; redeploy troops to Kuwait or Hawaii.”
The bottom line is that to win means to be victorious and to lose means to go down to defeat. The concepts resulting from these definitions are not difficult to understand. But, the New Democrats seek muddy the waters, so that clarity of thought is no longer possible. There is, however, on thing that remains crystal clear—at least to me. Talking to a New Democrat is like trying to have a conversation with a brick. It accomplishes nothing and, ultimately, leaves one largely dissatisfied.
Sher Zieve is a long-time syndicated columnist who generally writes columns of a politically Conservative and Constitutional nature. She also interviews notable people with an interesting and/or newsworthy story to tell. These include politicians, writers, activists and others in the news. Her work has been and continues to be carried by both national and international publications. Sher appears regularly on national talk shows.