Treason? Democrats Use the Term Loosely

Treason? Democrats Use the Term Loosely
By Bob Martin Contributing Writer

Success in Iraq is in the world's best interest, the Middle East's collective interest and our national interest. Converting Iraq into a stable state that is not a threat to its neighbors and does not oppress its own people cannot be a bad thing. The confluence of interests suggests it should be easy to formulate a policy that would draw bipartisan support.

The Democrats are convinced failure in Iraq is in their immediate political interest, and they have invested in failure from the beginning.

They criticize every aspect of the war and the effort to establish a stable government. They demand President Bush "change course," but they never propose an alternative plan that could conceivably lead to success. "Withdrawal," preferably immediate withdrawal, is their only "plan."

When asked what would happen in Iraq and the greater Middle East if we withdraw before the job is completed, they simply do not respond. Iran declares it will fill the political vacuum when the U.S. withdraws.

When asked about this prospect, the Democrats do not respond. The Democrats know that a precipitous withdrawal will forever seal our Iraq policy as an abject failure, and that is most important to them. Their immediate political advantage trumps all other concerns.

Despite their obvious pursuit of party interest at the expense of national interest, the Democrats sanctimoniously claim no one has the right to question their patriotism.
Questioning patriotism

Alternatively, they consider themselves free to question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. From the beginning, they accused President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of treason, claiming they deliberately lied about prewar intelligence. They continue to demand President Bush's impeachment.

They now accuse a distinguished U.S. Army General of treason. Days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker?s testimony, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Rahm Emanuel began attacks on their character. Reid, Durbin, and Emanuel accused General Petraeus of deliberately manipulating the data in order to mislead the public. This was before he testified!

An anonymous Democratic senator said in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, "No one wants to call (Petraeus) a liar on national TV.

The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." Sure enough, MoveOn.org not only called Petraeus a liar in the New York Times, they also accused him of treason. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

The evidence suggests "the surge" has improved the military situation and the political situation at the local level in some parts of Iraq.

A national reconciliation continues to escape politicians in Baghdad, however. This progress has panicked the Democrats. Their invested position is the surge would not and could not work; therefore, if the evidence suggests otherwise, their only recourse is to discredit the messenger. They make every effort to destroy General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's reputation.
They have done the same thing to other members of the Bush administration.

It may be true that failure in Iraq is in the Democrats' immediate political interest. The Democrats' tactics to assure that failure are not in their long-term political interest.

They have gone too far and shown themselves to be without honor.

All-consuming political ambition is a very ugly thing.

http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=
34576&format=html