"While preparing for their congressional pajama party Tuesday night (D.C. escort services reportedly had a slow evening), the Dems showed once again that, as wretched as the Bush administration can be, it remains a safer bet in the Age of Terror.
The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda.
And, as a capper, no leading Democrat praised our military when it was revealed yesterday that we captured the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda, Khaled al-Mashhadani. Wouldn't want any good news reaching the voters . . .
The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. It doesn't say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever - although that's what the Dems imply.
In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.
Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.
Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?
Not that the problem in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas isn't serious. We should be hitting high-value targets there from the air and employing special operations forces - despite the consequences for the Musharraf government. (Or maybe we could just send in Obama Girl? She'd look hot in a burqa.)
Field Marshall Obama's fire-for-effect belligerence underscores the sad truth that the Dems are perfectly willing to squander the lives of our troops. They just don't want any casualties that might lead to positive results before the 2008 election.
So what's the truth about terrorism? Is the threat worse today than it was in 2001? Why can't we get Osama? Why do the terrorists keep coming?
(We'll skip the embarrassing-for-the-Democrats question about why the terrorists have been unable to strike our country since 9/11.)
Islamist terrorism is about the catastrophic, self-inflicted failure of the Muslim world of the greater Middle East. It's their bad, not ours. They're humiliated, jealous, hateful, stunningly incompetent - and angry about it. And the situation isn't about to change.
We'll face Islamist terror for decades to come. Although only the military can lead this fight, terrorism is like crime in the sense that we'll never eliminate it entirely. But (also as with crime) that doesn't mean it isn't worth reducing terrorism as much as we can.
Does the fact that rapes still occur mean that we should stop arresting rapists? Does our failure to stop all murder mean we should let murderers run wild? Of course not. You nail every criminal you can and make the world safer. But it will never be perfectly safe."
But it's the perfectly-safe nirvana that the Dems pitch to their trembling constituents, the "elect me and through sheer force of will I'll convince the bad guys to stop trying to harm you", and forget the fact that democrat-controlled towns and cities have the highest crime rates. This is the case because that's where the freeloaders go to live off of the dole and when the government checks aren't enough to cover that silly old drug monkey then it's off to find someone's grandma and smack her around for her monthly stipend. Or how about LA where the street gangs virtually run parts of the city. The minority street gangs but of course because minorities favor democrat-run abodes for they know full well that law enforcement will never be allowed to do what it really needs to do to curtail crime.
Democrats talking tough on crime and terrorism would be laughable were it not bordering on criminal. The reason al Qaeda is as tough and as brazen as it is today is because a democrat proved to them that America doesn't have the stomach to fight, and whenever our fighting men prove otherwise it's the democrats that seek to pull the rug out from under them and surrender before too much of that welfare money is spent on the military.
Both houses of Congress spend $2.2 BILLION dollars a year just to run both houses of Congress. This at a time when our men in arms are in desperate need of those new bomb-proof vehicles that the press doesn't tell you about because they're so damned expensive you might be tempted to ask your congress-critters why the lives of our soldiers and Marines are less important than providing free cable for some 300 lb welfare case that the likes of John Edwards wants to give even MORE money to for not doing a damned thing except eating and making up some new French variation of a name for their latest hoodlum-to-be that we'll all be supporting one way or another.
Why in all hell do you think the Kennedy's and the McCain's wanted to add 20 million additional leeches to America. Just think of how the free-money would flow from those who use it to strengthen the country, to those perfectly content with doing little else than watching enough Oprah so as to convince advertisers to pay her even more millions in order to add to the rolls of the terminally stupid and liking it that way. The dems WANT that nation of zombified, circus-sized fatso's sitting at home nodding at the boob tube, and Obama would protect them even if it DID mean drafting all of the able bodied men to invade Pakistan.