March 17, 2004

Win the war--with more cadaver dogs...

Bill Hobbs takes a look at Kerry's plan for the War on Terror (I wrote a bit about the speech here, the press release is here.)

Do you hear it? It's the language of disengaging from the terrorists, and preparing for when they hit us again. It's the language of switching from offense to defense...

...For John Kerry, our "first responders" in the War on Terror are the people who respond to an attack with firehoses, bulldozers and cadaver dogs. For President George Bush, our "first responders" are the 101st Airborne, the Third Infantry Division, the Navy and the Air Force. They get no mention in Kerry's self-described "Agenda to Support Front Lines in America's War on Terror," which contains not a single single word about offense....

They don't want us to WIN. People like Kerry don't want us to WIN the War. They assume we are too big and strong to actually LOSE, so therefore their preferred outcome, STALEMATE, is an option.

Stalemate is the Left's preference in many areas. A continuous level of low-grade terrorist attacks would justify lots of big government—read Kerry's plan, it's all about buying more stuff for more government employees.

It's the same with crime and poverty and bad schools. The Left assumes that we are going to live with those problems permanently. Comfortably. Government programs and studies and task-forces will spawn endlessly, with no chance any of them will be terminated just because they fail to solve a problem. Or because, even worse, they do solve some problem.

Which is part of why George Bush attracts irrational hatred. He wants to solve problems, not live with them.

Actually, the hatred is not irrational, it just seems that way, because they can't say what they are thinking out loud. Kerry can't say that he doesn't envision winning the war, even though it's obvious from his "plan."

We all know people who find President Bush loathsome. But it's almost impossible to argue or discuss the question with them, because their underlying philosophical objections are never revealed. They probably never admit them even to themselves. Have you noticed how often opposition to the war, or other Bush policies, is couched in aesthetic terms? Any example of America triumphant is described as "ugly," or "swaggering."

I've read Leftists express disgust at Bush "prancing on an aircraft carrier." Now I saw the pictures, and that's simply a ludicrous lie. He did nothing of the sort. But to many people, the fact that he was obviously at home with jets, and with our military, and proud of American strength, was obscene! "Prancing" is the mot juste. (The Clintons visited military units too, but they always gave off some subtle signal that were just doing one of those tiresome presidential duties, like receiving delegations of Boy Scouts.)

One good thing about being in a war is that it reveals so much that so many people would like to hide. It's easy to fudge that you don't really want to end poverty or crime. It's much harder to song-and-dance past not wanting your own country to win the war.

[Go here for a delicious example of a leftist refusing to say that he wants America to win against Saddam, even though pressed repeatedly. Amazing squirming.]

Posted by John Weidner at March 17, 2004 8:12 AM
Weblog by John Weidner