Earlier prescient advice from the anti-American crowd has included: dismantling government intelligence agencies "brick by brick"; toppling the Shah of Iran and giving Islamic fundamentalism its first real foothold in the Mideast; turning the U.S. armed forces into a feminist consciousness-raising session; demanding continued dependence on Arab oil in order to preserve mud flats in Alaska; indignantly opposing a missile defense shield; promoting endless due process rights for aliens who are illegal, diseased or criminal; disarming the public; and purging the nation of insidious references to God.
Most people would be embarrassed at a track record like that, especially after Sept. 11. But instead of hanging their heads in shame, liberals have boldly returned to their typical hysteria and defeatism.
We keep getting breathless reports on the indefatigable Taliban forces and fearsome Afghan terrain. Liberals have to suppress their glee at possible failure, so instead they post droll rambling narratives on the nation's op-ed pages with no apparent point. Liberals write essays like little kids making up a melody. They meander along, issuing implicitly contradictory snide remarks about Bush, until they run out of energy and finally conclude with some incongruous, throaty peroration.
But the general theme is: We're going to lose. This thought perks up liberals because it reminds them of their favorite war -- Vietnam. They are only disconsolate when America wins wars.
I don't know. Have liberals seen our guys? Engaging in mind-boggling acts of heroism makes our brave servicemen happy. Camel-riding nomads may excel at the sucker punch, but wait until they see Western Civilization's response. As pilot "Elvis" said on MSNBC the other night, "We'll do the job." So I wouldn't worry too much about the redoubtable Taliban forces. We're sending in men, not Washington Post columnists.
The New York Times has tried to put a happy face on the sudden resurgence of military men -- both of which are deeply detested at the Times -- by recasting support for the military as a general enthusiasm for all federal government programs. "Here was a Republican president," the Times insanely exulted, "repeatedly extolling the crucial role of the federal government in providing for the safety of the American people."
If you support the Marines, then how in God's name can you oppose taxpayer funded photos of bullwhips up men's anuses? At least I think that's the logic.
In fact, the only federal government programs conservatives ever liked are precisely the only ones we need now. Do you imagine it was a Republican or Democrat who once vowed he would "totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country by piece, nail by nail, brick by brick"?
The surprising answer is: a Democrat (!) -- Ron Dellums, D-Calif. Soon after the pot-smoking, draft-dodging Clinton (also a Democrat) became president, the House Democratic Caucus elected Dellums chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The vote was 198-10. The New York Times took the occasion to shower Dellums with praise.
But despite the earnest pleadings of Democrats and Hollywood starlets, it turns out we actually did need to spend more money on "one more cruise missile" rather than, say, the Head Start program. (Having a missile dropped on your city can be very educational.) In the new ranking of national priorities, survival has zipped right to the top of the heap.
Among many other excellent ideas that have served this country well in recent days, congressional Democrats have leapt to action to protect our airports by calling out the efficiency-maximizing services of the federal government. Soon the Department of Motor Vehicles will be running the airport magnetometers.
In addition, liberals everywhere are demanding their favorite measure whenever there is war, peace, inflation, a recession, an emergency or normal times: Raise taxes! The New York Times exhorted Congress to "consider rolling back -- not speeding up -- the regressive parts of the president's 10-year tax." ("Regressive" means "tax cut" in Times-speak. "Progressive" means "Ann Pays More.")
Lawyers, too, have been performing vital services for the nation in this time of need. According to an article in The New Yorker this week, the U.S. military -- the ones who are supposed to be daunted by the unforgiving Afghan countryside -- had Taliban leader Mullah Omar in their sights the first night of the war. But on the advice of a lawyer, they didn't shoot. Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander in charge, explained that the judge advocate general "doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire."
Lawyer Alan Dershowitz is promoting the adoption of a national ID card. Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties -- provided we're only talking about criminals. Dershowitz has also offered to defend Osama bin Laden in court, saying it would be "an act of high patriotism." It's kind of too bad there isn't going to be a trial. Having Dershowitz defend him could be Osama's only shot at not being the least popular person in the courtroom.