A Soldier's Perspective

True Colors

June 8th, 2006 by Patriot

Not all Democrats are happy about the fact that al-Zarqawi can no longer further their political agenda of disgracing the President and our troops. As a matter of fact, some are even questioning why we even killed Zarqawi. According to the Washington Slimes, the whole matter of killing Zarqawi is a cover up:

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess — get out." Now, if I were a constituent of this congressman's district, I'd be flooding his email with complaints. Of course, this is coming from the same man who called the bombing of Baghdad in the early days of the war "an act of extreme terrorism."

Rep. Murtha Focker said that "we have done everything we can do militarily in Iraq" now that Zarqawi is dead. Interesting that the terrorist would still be alive if Murtha Focker had his way to begin with. That's the exact same line he used on November 17, 2005:

"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

So, which is it? How can Murtha Focker have any credibility when he continues to recycle the same lines that seem to contradict themselves? And why are the people of Pennsylvania protecting him?

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat who tried to win the Democratic primary to oppose Bush in the 2004 election, basically said that Zarqawi wasn't even a big player. Why are we wasting time looking for him? Kucinich is the same man that said "Military victory there is not possible." On his own website he proudly proclaims, "the truth is that this war is making people in [Iraq and the U.S.] less safe." How would he define the killing of Zarqawi if it wasn't a military victory and people aren't safer with his untimely death?

In November of last year, Kucinich published an article at the Huffington Post attempting to minimize the effect Zarqawi was having in Iraq. The title of the article was "The Specter of a Zarqawi Takeover Is As False As Saddam's Mushroom Cloud."

In the article, Kucinich says, "By making Zarqawi the face of the opposition, however, the White House is distracting us from the significant, real and widespread non-violent Iraqi opposition." If Zarqawi isn't responsible for the VIOLENT opposition, then who is? Surely, the good congressman can give us examples of Zarqawi's use of "non-violent opposition." It must be extensive if he's willing to mention it.

Many Democrats took the news with a grain of salt. Most of the praise for today's success from the left was caveated with words like, "but we still have a long way to go." It's difficult for them to accept progress and success in a war they want so much to fail. Things are starting to look up and the defeatists are scared. Code Pink will probably be out in force tomorrow night at Walter Reed with signs that Zarqawi was set up and complain that he was killed without a trial or something.

So, what would the nay-sayers have us do? Should we just have left Iraq and allowed Zarqawi to continue his fight against the Iraqi people without us? A lot of work went into finding and killing this man. Zarqawi was personally responsible for many beheadings, even though Nicolas Berg's dad, a pacifist who is running for Delaware's U.S. House seat on the Green Party ticket seems to think Bush was the one wielding the knife disguised with a headdress.

"First of all, I'm not even certain that al-Zarqawi even killed my son," said Michael Berg, who doesn't believe the videotape of his son's execution or what he's been told by the FBI any more than he believes conspiracy theories suggesting his son was killed by the U.S. government.

Queue X-Files music!

Where does all this leave us? The Democrats lost seats during the 2004 elections. They lost the Presidency they so touted as a surefire win. They lost the special election in California, a blue state, where the previous representative is now a felon sitting behind bars. Even after losing they shouted victory. Now, they're minizing the successes, yet again, of our troops who are fighting on the front lines of terrorism.

Many claim that our presence is creating a breeding ground of terrorists in Iraq. Good for us. At least they're breeding where we can kill them. I'd much rather them breed there than here. What the left needs to understand is that the people don't want to hear how something is screwed up. We want to hear how they're going to make it better. And that doesn't mean unconditional withdrawal from the one springboard against terrorism we have.

Posted in Military Perspective