One is entitled to wonder how the prime movers in today's Democratic Party would behave differently if they were trying to dispirit our troops and embolden the enemy.
Early on in the Iraq war I watched in disbelief as Democrats, one by one, then group by group, with malice aforethought, fraudulently accused President Bush of something they knew to be false: that he deceived the nation about Iraqi WMD to start a war he had been predetermined to launch since before he was conceived because a) he wanted revenge against Saddam for his father, b) he wanted Iraq's oil for the United States, c) he wanted Iraq's oil for Dick Cheney or d) he is a neoconservative dogmatist who believes democracy is a panacea and preemptive wars to convert tyrannies to democracy are our new Manifest Destiny.
Yes, they accused our commander in chief of lying us into war -- thus savaging his reputation and that of the United States before the entire world -- all the while complaining that President Bush had damaged our reputation in the international community.
Just to make sure there was no misunderstanding as to their intent to destroy his (and the nation's) image, they remained at their megaphones to shriek, incessantly, that Mr. Bush hadn't given Saddam enough time and chances to comply with U.N. resolutions (though he'd violated umpteen of them). This sent an unmistakable signal to the world that it was President Bush that had been unreasonable and in the wrong on this war.
To further emphasize their message, Democrats branded Bush as a unilateralist, flagrantly ignoring that he had desperately tried to bring as many nations as he could into the coalition and did succeed in convincing a significant number. They also condemned him for initiating a preemptive war -- even though their best hope at the time, John Kerry, later acknowledged that preemptive war under certain circumstances had always been an acceptable strategy of the United States.
Though Democrats have always maintained, counter-logically, that they supported the troops even while they were busy Sheehanizing the war, they couldn't help but reveal their true colors on many occasions, such as when Sen. Kerry accused our soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi civilians or when Sen. Durbin likened the Gitmo prison to the Soviet, Nazi and Cambodian death camps. Nor must we forget that Durbin did not actually apologize for his outrage, saying only that he was sorry that people misunderstood him. But they didn't.
Despite these precedent-breaking acts of disloyalty, the Democrats weren't finished outdoing themselves. Nancy Pelosi proved that when she went to Syria over the president's strenuous objections, to engage in diplomacy with Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad on behalf of the United States (at least as she wished it to be), though she was utterly without legal or moral authority to do so. Surely, we thought, the very leader of the entire House of Representatives wouldn't go that far and contradict and undermine, so overtly, the official foreign policy of the United States. We were wrong.
It's time for Harry Reid to explain how he can justify funding the war for another month, much less another year, when he believes there is no chance of securing the goal for which our troops are fighting and dying. At least President Bush isn't asking soldiers, in the words of that great patriot John Kerry, to die for a mistake, for President Bush believes they are fighting for a noble and essential cause. So what is the Democrats' excuse?
It's hard to tell anymore whether the Democrats' deplorable actions are motivated more by their psychological predisposition against recognizing evil in the world (except among American political conservatives), or their raw quest for power. But perhaps Sen. Reid's recent statement to reporters sheds some light on the question.
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," said Reid. "Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."