The political party that is known for nothing if not for politicizing the War on Terror claims to be upset that Vice President Dick Cheney was "politicizing" the war when he suggested that Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman could embolden terrorists. Couldn't they please spare us the phony outrage for a change?
Adding insult to injury, Lieberman said that Lamont's demand for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by terrorists.
The victorious and victimized Lamont is beside himself at both Cheney and his temporarily fallen opponent Lieberman for bringing up the subject of terrorists. How dare they address the most important issue of the day? Don't they realize that only antiwar liberal Democrats have the floor on this matter?
Lamont said, "My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, never one to be outdone in the inauthentic expression of rage department, took to the op-ed pages to decry Cheney's remarks as "ugly" and "frightening." He was obviously upset at Cheney's remarks precisely because they were so relevant, as Kennedy specializes in irrelevant, incoherent rants.
Of course, this is the same senator who, among shameless others, has repeatedly leveled the scandalously "ugly" and "frightening" allegation that Bush and Cheney lied us into war. It's the same cheap-shot artist who forever attempts to smear Cheney because of his ties to Halliburton.
It's not just Lamont and Kennedy. Countless Democratic leaders have made it their No. 1 priority to politicize the war and shield themselves from return fire from Republicans by saying that any dissent from their dissent constitutes a chilling of speech and unfair partisan politics.
It used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge (of the United States), but for today's Democrats, politics doesn't even stop at the edge of the Dead Sea.
For example, you would think that when we received the good news that British intelligence, with our cooperation, thwarted a terrorist plot to explode some 10 America-bound jets, all Americans would rejoice, give thanks and applaud our success in the War on Terror, right?
Wrong. Democrats couldn't resist using the incident as yet another opportunity to condemn the Bush administration for attacking Iraq and diverting our resources from the "greater terrorist threat."
Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas said, "Five years after 9/11, our country is not as safe as it needs to be, or should be. Americans deserve real security, not just leaders who talk tough but fail to deliver." This, after we just foiled a deadly attack, not to mention that we haven't been hit with another major attack since 9/11, and not to mention if Democrats had their way on the Patriot Act and the NSA Surveillance program, we'd be much more vulnerable to attack.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Five years after 9/11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists."
Are Kennedy and Reid not apologizing for the terrorist plotters here, implying Bush's foreign policy has given the terrorists grounds to attack us? Well, how about these two senators joining the rallying cry against the terrorists instead of President Bush?
These people are either inexcusably clueless about the nature of the terrorists and the gravity and scope of the threat they pose, or they are aware and choose to lend them moral support anyway. Remember, they aren't just pontificating university professors but Democratic Party leaders.
The Democrats' position on the war, in lieu of a plan, is that we've diverted our resources by deposing Saddam instead of pursuing bin Laden. But we have never ceased vigorous pursuit of bin Laden. More important, we are fighting a war not just against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but Islamic fascism, which also includes Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.
Whether or not we capture bin Laden, there will always be plenty of others to take his place. This is a global war with a global enemy driven by a hateful, life-devaluing ideology. Wake up, Democrats, and either get on board or get out of the way; and quit accusing Republicans of politicizing the war to mask your own engagement in the practice and your failure to contribute anything constructive to this national cause.