Posted on 07/16/2007 10:46:04 PM PDT by goldstategop
More Republicans have defected to the withdraw-from-Iraq Democrats. They have read the polls that show falling support among the American people for the war in Iraq, and have concluded that continuing to support the war will cost them their Senate or House seat.
Is it possible that some of these Republicans have simply consulted their consciences and decided to abandon positions they have held since the beginning of the war? It is possible. But consider this: If the American people continued to support the war, does one reader of this column believe that one Republican defector would have in fact defected?
The sad truth is that moral courage is rare -- whether among private citizens or among political leaders. Even opponents of the war have to admit that, given the polls, it takes no courage for a politician to call for American withdrawal from Iraq. Whether or not you agree with those who want American forces to stay in Iraq, that is a far more courageous position in today's America -- just as, right or wrong, it admittedly took more courage for a politician to oppose the war when America deposed Saddam Hussein's regime.
So with the mainstream media and the Democrats -- often interchangeable entities -- relentlessly pushing for withdrawal from an increasingly unpopular war led by an unpopular president, it takes a lot of courage to argue against what would be the most costly defeat for America in its history. And how often in history did the right thing not take courage? And how often was the right position the most popular position?
Despite all this, however, in this matter victory will go to the courageous. If America stays in Iraq, America will win and then the courageous will surely be victorious. But the courageous will gain a victory even if they lose their fight for America staying in Iraq. For then the supporters of the American presence in Iraq will be quickly proven right as Iraq descends into ethnic cleansing, creates millions of refugees who destabilize nearby countries, emboldens Iran to directly enter Iraqi life, spawns a potential genocide, and produces the largest base for Islamic terror in the world. These are not the predictions of pro-war advocates. Every one of these consequences of an American withdrawal was acknowledged as likely in a recent New York Times editorial arguing for American withdrawal from Iraq.
What will Americans who called for American withdrawal -- especially among those who supported the war until now -- tell future historians? That 3,600 American lives in four and a half years was too high a price to pay to fight the cruelest individuals and ideology on earth at that time? (By contrast, in World War II, America lost more than 300,000 lives in three and a half years, fighting the cruelest ideology of that era.) That they thought that an Islamist victory in Iraq would make America more secure? And what will Republican senators and representatives tell their descendants? That they read the polls and saw that most Americans supported withdrawal, so they changed their minds and abandoned the cause of freedom in Iraq and fled an unpopular Republican war president?
History may not harshly judge those who opposed entering Iraq at the outset. But that is not what matters now. All that matters now -- and what history will judge -- is an American's position on whether to stay and fight in Iraq or whether to leave Iraq.
Just about every generation has some horrific evil that it must fight. For the Democratic Party today that evil is carbon dioxide emissions. For the rest of us, it is an ideology that teaches that its deity is sanctified by the blood of innocents, just as the Aztec deities were.
History will see that clearly. And judge accordingly.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sadly, even Prager doesn’t know or understand the left well enough. If they could raise enough votes to cut funding, even knowing the slaughter that would immediately ensue, they’d still somehow blame Bush for their fiasco.
bump
The only ones that will judge them harshly are those of us who can see what is going to happen.
They have never been judged at all, harshly or otehrwise, for the carnage they caused in Southeast Asia nor have they ever accepted any responsibility at all for it. Inf act, they often deny it ever happened or wasn’t as bad as reported by escapees.
The left writes the books and believe me, they won’t ever accept that they are rotten to the core.
ping
Democrats are racist enough that the slaughter that would inevitable ensue in Iraq after withdrawl would not matter to them because those people are just not like us.
Thanks for the ping
I think they mis-judge what the American people want. Nobody wants this war to continue but that doesn’t mean a withdrawal of troops. It means WIN THE WAR.
Kinda like BUILD THE FENCE!
After 9/11 all the liberals wanted to know is how fuel efficent our cars were. Can’t you see we got these two towers knocked over? We’re under attack! Take your terrorist-hugging hemp-worshipping gun-hating abortion-loving butt to Greenland!
... and George W. Bush!
Whatever happened to prior Dem crises like Haiti or arsenic? Once they tell the media to change course they do so immediately. How many of us have died from arsenic poisoning our drinking water since 9/11?
I think we SHOULD withdraw from Iraq — see my tagline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.