Thoughts on voting for “change” and Democratic over-the-top rhetoric

Ever heard that song “A Change Will Do You Good” by Sheryl Crow? Don’t like Sheryl Crow, but love the song. But these days, I’m not agreeing with the sentiment too much.

I got into a discussion today at a political forum I frequent battling over an issue that frustrates us all as Republicans, especially now that Democrats are in control of Congress. The issue is Democrats and their rhetoric on Iraq. Here’s what I wrote, which includes only minor edits to reflect that I’m posting it on my blog in addition to the message board:

Dems like Rangel, Kennedy, Kerry, etc somehow think they should be allowed to get away with what they say, and they do so by playing the absolute moral authority patriot card. Screaming for years that the President “lied” about the rationale for the war, only wanted to go in for the oil to make his buddies rich, that our troops are no better than Pol Pot, that Saddam’s torture prisons are under “new management”, that the war is “unwinnable”, that our troops are (deliberately) terrorizing Iraqi women and children – these are statements Democrats make and expect not to be questioned on. Sorry, but the days that Democrats can make and get away with outrageous statements that embolden the enemy are over and I, and anyone – whether they be Republican OR Democrat who supports us actually *winning* the war on terror – shouldn’t let those statements stand without strongly responding to them and soundly rejecting them.

Democrats like Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, and others like them who make such outrageous statements are part of the problem, not the solution. What would be so incredibly refreshing is to see some of these same Democrats, who have been the loudest in the coalition of the b!tching, instead of sounding the defeatist horn the first chance they get, instead say “look, the President’s plan is not a winning strategy, but I KNOW we can win this thing and here’s how we’re gonna do it.” Instead, it’s the same ol’ same ol’ from the anti-war party: I wish I could take my vote back! The President lied! We can’t win! Our troops are no better than Pol Pot! It’s the policy of our troops to torture and kill innocents!

The problem isn’t that war policy is merely criticized, but instead the way people in the Democratic party who are in positions to do something about it go about making the criticisms. Instead of offering up solutions to win which can be debated, critiqued, accepted and/or rejected, they offer nothing but defeatism and false accusations they can’t back up, both of which undermine the war on terror. This is something Democrats either won’t acknowledge or will exclaim, “But as an American citizen, I have a right to say this!” as if anyone’s trying to take away that right. The issue isn’t whether or not someone has the right to say something, but whether or not it’s right to say. I have the right to scream “fire” in a crowded theater even when there’s not one, but that doesn’t make it right to say. But if we wanted to make this a rights issue, we could and that would be by saying that yes, Democrats do indeed have the right to say what they have, and in turn Republicans have the right to criticize it. Democrats throw out the patriot card in an effort to stifle criticism of their more outrageous comments. Words have meanings and saying those words can have consequences, and Democrats don’t want to be reminded that with freedom comes the responsiblity to be responsible for what you say. That won’t work anymore.

The American people voted for “change” last week, because in their eyes they didn’t see Republicans getting it done in the WOT. Fine. A poll taken shortly after the election stated that as far as domestic legislative priorities, a majority of voters were on board with Democrats. But what’s got them worried about Dems being in power? Let’s take a look:

But they also expressed concerns that Democrats might seek to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq too quickly or hamper the administration’s efforts to combat terrorism, it said.


While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing” even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration “from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism” and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.

What “change” can we look fwd to with Democrats as it relates to the war on terror? Let’s see: seeing Iraq as “not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved” and troop withdrawals in six months. Oh yes – now that’s a plan, isn’t it? Possibly electing a man as majority leader of the House who essentially wants us to cut and run from Iraq because we “can’t win.” Restoring habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants. Yippee! That’s a change we should all be rooting for. Henry Waxman salivating over where to start in investigating the Commander in Chief and others in the admin. John Conyers putting a false face on his real intention with the CIC, which is to impeach him. These are “winning” strategies designed to help us win the WOT? I think not.

The simple fact of the matter is this: if Democrats spent as much time and energy actually coming up with alternative winning solutions for the war on terror as they did striving to come up with strategies to demagogue and defeat Republicans, then maybe they’d actually be able to do more than just defeat Republicans: they could actually be a part of the solution we all want, which is defeating the terrorists and winning the war on terror. Democrats won’t be able to be a part of the solution on how to defeat Islamofascists until they stop looking at the CIC and Republicans in general as the bigger enemy than Al Qaeda. And that’s what takes us back to the rhetoric used by Democrats when criticizing decisions made in the WOT: more time is spent accusing our troops of being no better than the enemy, and asserting that our CIC “lied” and is trying to steal our rights away in the dead of night than is on actually coming up with something substantive the way of planning to win the war we should all want to win.

The real issue here should not be “how dare you accuse me of emboldening the enemy!” but why more Democrats don’t denounce the statements that elicted such a strong response in the first place for what they are, and offer up viable solutions that would help us win the war on terror. It’s nearly impossible to do that, though, when you think that the war in Iraq – which is part of the WOT – was a “mistake” and that our troops are no better than Pol Pot, and you think our CIC “lied” about Iraq. When you don’t believe in something or think something was wrong to do, it’s difficult to have any attitude other than a defeatist attitude and even more difficult to make a serious claim of being desirous to lead us back in the right direction on said issue. For all the problems there have been with respect to Republican decisions made in the war on terror – and I admit there have been many – they’ve just been magnified tenfold with putting the Keystone Cops in the majority in Congress. Actions speak louder than words, and judging by the actions already taking place within the House Demorcatic “leadership” I think, quite frankly, that how people classify Democrats one way or the other may be the least of Democratic party worries in the coming months.

Comments are closed.