Monday, December 19, 2005

Heads, I Win; Tails, You Lose


Imagine being able to set yourself up for a political victory in a given situation, regardless of the outcome. It seems that the Left is smart enough to actually have pulled it off. Mind you, this is all a ‘what if’, but based upon the rhetoric I’m hearing from the Left, they can’t possibly lose this (currently) theoretical ideological battle.

Let’s say that, before George W. Bush leaves office, not a single terrorist attack occurs inside the United States. The reason couldn’t possibly be that the President was smart enough to allocate intelligence, law enforcement and military resources correctly. Clearly the only reason such a thing would happen is that the Paper Tiger threat of Islamic Terrorism was overblown by a fear-mongering President and his eee-ville Republican minions. This, of course, allowed Bush to justify lying about intelligence and going in to Iraq to make his oil buddies rich.

Let’s say that, before George W. Bush leaves office, a terrorist attack, of any significant magnitude, occurs inside the United States. The reason couldn’t possibly be that Islamic Militants are effective unconventional operators, using the enemy’s greatest strengths against them, just as in what occurred before 9/11/2001. To the Left, fault will clearly lie at the feet of the President, because everything he does is stupid. If Bush had not lied about intelligence to go in to Iraq in order to make his oil buddies rich, recklessly whacking the metaphorical hornet’s nest of Islamic Militants, and if he had just allocated intelligence, law enforcement and military resources correctly, such a catastrophe never would have happened. That is, assuming he’s still alive. If not, there are still all of the Republicans to blame for supporting him. If that’s not a recipe for political opportunism, i.e. the quest to regain power at any cost, I don’t know what is.

Can the Left have it both ways? Of course! Restoring power to the rightful owners on the Left is what matters most. Especially since W is such an idiot.

And that’s the commonality between these two scenarios. W is an idiot. Really? Tell me why. Because he’s a Christian? Because he wasn’t a Rhodes Scholar? Because he’s a Texan? Because he’s a Republican?

Name-calling is the refuge of the person that has just lost the argument. If you wish to call in to question the intelligence of somebody’s actions in a given situation, by all means, tell me what would be an intelligent alternate action.

To the U.S. Congress: if you believe that the President is behaving monarchical, bring up your problems on the floor of your legislative body rather than throwing out amorphous accusations of “troubling questions” about his behavior on your favorite networks' Sunday morning "news" program. You want to impeach him? Go ahead - don't wait 'til you have regained the majority.

But that would show the world exactly who you are and what your intention is: that political victory, i.e. revenge for the Bush v. Gore injustice, trumps national security. Thomas Dewey, a Republican, had the decency to hold off investigating the Roosevelt/Truman administration regarding the Pearl Harbor attack until after the Second World War had been won. He, a Republican, regardless of whether or not he was right to demand an investigation, believed that national security trumped political opportunism. Do you have such decency? I doubt it.

No comments: