The Opposition’s Real Proposition

Many Americans are unfortunately unaware of a great national triumph. Iraq, often a headline story when it could be portrayed as a failure, has become just another forgotten war. Supposedly, the Democrats were going to beat the Republicans over the head with it.

But like Enron, the 2003 scandal that vanished, because mostly Democrats were involved, Iraq is overlooked not because America’s losing, but because it’s becoming such a stunning success. So much so, coalition monthly casualties in Iraq can be under Afghanistan’s.

Still, slogan-loving liberals constantly accused Iraq as a war fought solely for petroleum. And, their favorite was, “No blood for oil.” It meant not one drop of blood spilled even to assure that liberals could continue driving their SUVs with total impunity.

The truth is that they’re against the war not because they believe in peace. Instead a more truthful slogan for them would be “No blood for non-whites.” Yes, tolerant liberals seem to be against wars in which non-whites could be liberated.

If the leftist search engine is googled with “Bush Hitler,” about 1.1 million hits are returned indicating that liberals believe Hitler was indeed a bad guy. So bad in fact, they make many false associations to their least favorite president “Dubya.”

Yet, most liberals would have supported Europe’s liberation. Obviously, the Nazi death camps had to be stopped. Even Barack Obama claims he had a crazy uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz, infamous Nazi concentration camp, even though it was the Russians who actually captured it.

Like Europeans, Iraqis suffered because of a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. He too committed genocide, the Marsh Arabs, and murdered at least a million Iraqis. He used WMDs against the Kurds. Yeah, Saddam was pretty bad, yet googling “Hussein Hitler” only gets 462,000 hits. Obviously, liberals believe Bush is much worse than Saddam.

So, what is the difference between Iraq and Europe? Coincidently, the color of the liberated. In the post WWII era, liberals were against practically all wars that involved freeing non-white people. Vietnam was where liberals really triumphed keeping non-white Asians un-liberated. General Giap admitted in his memoirs that the Vietcong would have surrendered except for the anti-war protests in America.

And, liberals quickly called the Afghan War a quagmire, but the Taliban folded so fast, they just didn’t have time to fully propagandize their failure litany. Still, 45% of all Democrats actually believe Bush instigated 9/11. In effect, they believe Bush lied to get us into that non-white war of “aggression” too!

Given enough time, liberals will exploit anything to undermine a war including casualties and trumping up atrocities like Haiditha, supposedly Iraq’s “Mai Lai.” currently, only one marine has charges pending, and as usual the macaca media is ignoring this story after impugning all the accused.

Actually, liberals aren’t against non-whites being liberated. They’re really against everyone being free. And they’re really not against war just wars fought by Republican presidents who usually engage the military to protect national security.

If a war has absolutely no strategic interest for the US, liberals go gung ho in favor of the conflict like Bill Clinton’s Bosnia buffoonery. Liberals never protested that war. Although if asked, they’ll claim they screamed against it in their closets!

Amazingly, Obama recently professed that he went against the Iraq War just to differ with Bush. In other words, Obama admitted that Democrats are willing to lose a war just to win elections. And, Obama stated that his withdrawal plan would have worked except for political factors.

For instance, the Anbar Awakening was just coincidental with the surge. That’s like a meteorologist saying that despite the cloudy skies and water falling everywhere, his prediction of a sunny day would have been accurate.

Interestingly, Obama is against the surge in Iraq even though he’s proposing to send 10000 more troops to Afghanistan. Supposedly, it’s failing. At least, that’s the new Democrat/macaca media litany.

But, if the surge isn’t what made Iraq a success, then why is Obama perpetuating Bush failed policy to Afghanistan? Does Obama expect another Sunni Awakening to occur there? Well, he thinks Afghanis speak Arabic. The fact is Sunnis would never have switched sides if they didn’t believe America was staying.

The surge not only helped America secure Iraq, but it also made Iraqis feel secure. Enough, that Sunnis were willing to call upon the American military to provide protection from Al Qaeda who would have surely beheaded them for their betrayal.

Finally, Iraq is like a tree planted in the desert. Liberals scoffed at the idea. But as Iraq survives and thrives becoming an oasis possibly spreading throughout the Middle East, eventually will be asked, “Who envisioned this?” Democrats, seeing no political advantage in trashing the war, will probably at that point take all the credit.