Posted by
JDComments on Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:19:38 PM
The headline of a NY Times article reads:
Democratic Hopefuls Split Over the Best Path to Peace
The only problem is that the debates, suggestions and accusatory rhetoric put forth by the illustrious group of Democratic politicians has nothing to do with "peace" and everything to do with retreat and hiding.
By almost universal consensus, US redeployment from Iraq will result in wholesale slaughter and unprecedented bloodshed, the likes of which hasn't been seen since Pol Pot, someone else who benefitted from a retreat by the US military due to Liberal cowardice.
And yet this is what the newspaper of record, whatever that means, hails as "peace". I guess for them the absence of an opposition results by definition in "peace". By that logic, we should disband all our police forces, and declare "peace in our cities.
And if the US dissolves its military forces, it can declare world peace.
The absurdity of that idea is mitigated by the fact that there are Liberals in San Francisco who really advocate that position, and all those who genuflect before the alter of the UN are closet believers in it too.
We are slowly getting back to the Chamberlain tactics that define peace as anything that doesn't entail the risk of military combat. Whether that is abdicating a country to a Nazi madman, or forsaking 25 million people to the mercy of a small group of religious fanatics, the important part for the Liberals is that we will not be standing up for what we believe and risking our lives and treasure, but rather that they can point to their successful implementation of "peace"and wait for the public idolatry to stream in.
And in this case, they can also wait for the next horrific attack on our homeland as they watch the senseless slaughter of perhaps millions of innocents in the country they have "pacified".