Tuesday, June 21, 2011

John McCain’s Shameful Embrace of the Latest Lefty Smear Against Conservatives – Isolationist!

In the never-ending quest to paint anyone who doesn’t adhere to the big-government, globalist political movement that is embraced by the New American Communists (known popularly as Progressives), they’ve come up with a new word with which to smear anyone who is opposed to their agenda.

Actually, the word itself isn’t new, but the negative connotation that the left is attempting to attach to it is. Like the word “racist,” it’s being bandied about with enthusiasm to smear, denigrate and deride anyone who dares to oppose this administrations’ involvement in Libya, and the three other conflicts we’re currently engaged in.

And, right on cue, John McCain was out in front of this effort, again turning his back on the Republican Party in general and conservatives in specific in helping progressives attack conservatives who don’t like the idea of entering a conflict without a clear mandate to win and to defeat the enemy.

Thanks a lot, Mr. Maverick, fine job you’re doing there.

It’s interesting that such groups as Code Pink, who were on the evening news nearly every night opposing President Bush’s War on Terror, are strangely silent now that their boy Obama is in the White House. Had Bush engaged us in the conflicts in Libya and Yemen, no doubt we’d be seeing much more of them, hands dripping with red paint, interrupting Congressional hearings, screaming about how illegal it all is and how he’s a war criminal and should be impeached.

Where are they now? And why aren’t they counted as knuckle-dragging isolationists as conservatives are?

The inconsistency, it burns.

But this double standard pales in comparison to McCain’s leftist stance on this issue.

McCain, speaking Monday at an event sponsored by the Foreign Policy Initiative in Washington, D.C., was asked whether he thought that support for the war on terrorism might be eroding within the GOP.

“I worry about it, and I worry a lot,” McCain said. “Because throughout the history of the Republican Party in modern times there’s two wings: the isolationist wing manifested before World War II and at other times; and the internationalist side.

“So I think there are going to be some tensions within our party,” he said.
Americans overwhelmingly support the War on Terror, but are greatly disappointed when they see our fighting men and women in uniform forced to abide by outrageous rules of engagement that give a clear advantage to our enemies. We understand the need to fight, but how can we win with one arm tied behind our back by misguided politicians who seem to think that winning the “hearts and minds” of 7th century barbarians is more important than defeating them?

The only tension that exists within the party is between an appeaser like McCain and Americans who wish to win this war by defeating the enemy by any means.

I have never understood the mysterious position taken by those on the left who oppose any and all wars. In theory, it sounds nice. “Who doesn’t want a world free of hostility and anger? Don’t we all want peace?” they say. I can’t argue with that.

But the problem doesn’t lie with us here in America. The tragic attacks of 9/11 should have proven to the world that radical islamists had escalated their war against the US and the Western way of life. Our response was justified. We wanted to destroy the infrastructure of support for Al Qaida, which was provided by Saddam’s Iraqi regime, along with Iran and Afghanistan. President Bush rightly attacked the source of their support and postponed the establishment of an islamic caliphate by invading Iraq. It had been clear to those who were paying attention that radical islamism was increasingly being supported by whole nations.

But today, ten years removed from 9/11, we still find our military attempting to win against an enemy that willfully ignores the Geneva Convention rules concerning non-uniformed fighters. This is another little detail that’s ignored by the left and various human rights organizations (but I repeat myself). If we were to truly abide by the Conventions ourselves, there would be no prisoners in this war. Illegal enemy combatants would be executed on the spot. We have the legal right to do this, why we aren’t is a mystery.

So we’re left with the impossible task of trying to win a politically correct war, fighting a war on our enemies’ terms instead of our own. And if this is the way McCain and the other appeasers in Washington want to fight this war, then there will be some blowback from those of us who remember how Americans once fought wars: to win them. If they want to call us isolationists, then so be it.

It makes no sense for us to be constantly engaged in hostilities without the clear goal of winning.

No comments: