Posted by
on Friday, April 27, 2007 3:22:17 PM
While researching some quotes for my book I stumbled across this gem:
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it".
- - - George Orwell
I am always amazed at how the most obvious and simplest is so often the most profound. Quite obviously the Democrat leadership has not only read this quote but have adopted it as their strategy.
Here's a supporting thought from Dr. Thomas Sowell musing about Speaker Pelosi and her recent freelance foreign policy trip:
"Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008." - - - Thomas Sowell
If you have any doubts, don’t take it from me or Dr. Sowell, take it from the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
``We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.''
And apparently he just can't wait because late last week he said:
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week"
Never mind the troop surge has not even been fully implemented yet. That's just one of those dumb old facts interfering with a good story.
Call me cynical but to these gimlet eyes, the Democrat stance has evolved from full support when they voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war, to tepid support when the war was not executed in an error and casualty free manner, to actively agitating for our defeat. The one consistency in this evolution is that in each case they voted in accordance to the windsock of public opinion.
I am through with trying to reconcile the obvious contradiction in how certain people can spew crap like this and still consider themselves patriotic. Logic must exist in the first place, if it is to be found at all. But while the actions speak for themselves, it's the motivations that until now have left me bewildered.
I think I have finally figured it out. It takes more than mental contortion to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts simultaneously - - it takes the mentality of a fundamentalist. Too harsh you say?
Here is the Encarta definition:
1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles
I didn't read Ann Coulters Godless and am not familiar with her thesis, so I may be covering old ground here; but when you wonder about the motivation of defeatist Democrats, and remember the fundamental doctrine of any political party is to win elections, it all starts to make sense.
Like their radical Islamist counterparts, Dems are perfectly willing to both inflict and endure casualties for their cause. This explains how Reid, Pelosi, Feingold, et. al. have no compunction about aiding and abetting the enemy with their reckless, troop-endangering rhetoric.
If the result of their actions was only political this would not be so bad. As it stands however, the Democrats increasing pursuit of defeat does treble damage; increases the likelihood of higher casualties now, virtually guarantees massively higher body counts, both at home and abroad, in the future, and worst of all, imparts the most grievous insult possible to those who died trying to win.
But apparently this troubles not the fundamentalist mind, because it adheres to the cause of the fundamental doctrine - - winning the next election.