Dear God:

I pray for the fallen, those brave souls who gave their all for this country, never flinching from their duty, whatever they were called to do, and whether the leadership decisions that brought them to their last mission were well considered or not. They have given all they had, without question.

But God, I pray also for the rest of us, for we lose too. We lose what could have been, from among the most selfless, principled, promising souls of our living generations. I would gladly exchange any ten Harvard graduates for one serviceman who willingly walks at the knifepoint. He has more guts, more integrity, more fortitude and likely more resourcefulness than the lot of them combined.

So, God, please let not their ultimate sacrifice be in vain. See to it that the objectives they were deployed to obtain are achieved. See to it that we have the satisfaction of realizing their mission successfully concluded. God, preserve this country for which they gave their lives, and give us all the wisdom, humility, and virtue to fully comprehend and gratefully acknowledge their sacrifices for what they are; for "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

Amen

By Jim Simpson 

If the word “change” was a female, today she would be hiding in a shelter for battered women. Everywhere we hear the trumpet call for change. Change in Iraq, change in healthcare, change in our economy, change in Washington – change, change, change. We are being beaten over the head with it! Change has become Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, while Hillary Clinton contrasts herself by claiming she’s for Real change. These candidates repeat the word like lurid catcalls from street whores. It is mind numbing.

But what “Change” are they talking about? Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Since the beginning of this election season Barack and Hillary have basically been in a shouting match to see who can out “Left” the other. Among Democrats, what is new about that?

Both candidates claim to want troops out of Iraq. Here, change is nothing more than the decades old, tired, hackneyed and beaten to death phrase “America out of … (name your country, in this case obviously, Iraq),” although, the way they say it is, in Nancy Pelosi’s words: “smart.” This is not a compliment, only recognition that Democrats have managed to develop some marketing skills with age.

And if you are so ignorant as to miss the unmistakable replay of Vietnam War era protests in this idiotic shouting match, then you must at least acknowledge that this “new plan” for “change” has been in effect since the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As you recall, mere weeks after voting for the war, Congressional Democrats jumped back on the anti-war bandwagon with shouts of “Quagmire!” “Wrong War, Wrong Time,” etc. As I said, “America out of Iraq.”

So the Democrats’ calls for change in Iraq are only new if you think a four-year-old concerted policy aimed at thwarting our efforts in this war at every turn is new. But they don’t even mean it. Unless they are as mindless as their campaign slogans, they must recognize that leaving Iraq now would be disastrous. Indeed, both have admitted as much. So much for change.

Hillary’s website personifies that old saw: “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS.” Under the heading “Strengthening the Middle Class,” middle class tax cuts are the first bullet. Sounds good! But a read of the pages-long fine print finds only one vague reference near the end about “extending middle class tax relief.” What on earth does that mean? If you believe the Democrats, the middle class has gotten no tax relief for the past eight years – Bush only cut taxes for the wealthy. If that’s true, how can you extend what you never got?!? And the word “extend” itself does not suggest new cuts after all, just a continuation of what was before.

She does, however, promise to “return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s.” Well if your tax rates are “extended” while everyone else’s go up I suppose it could look like a tax cut if you were one of the lucky saps to avoid the increase she is talking about here. Another proposal included in this tome was to introduce earmark reform by developing “a set of budget rules similar to those we had in the 90s which required us to fund new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas.” She is referring here to PAY-AS-YOU-GO spending restrictions, called PAYGO for short. Only trouble is, it has already been done. The Dems restored that mindless administrative fig leaf in 2004, and as I have thoroughly explained elsewhere, it is a complete sham.

Seems like Déjà vu all over again!

But seriously, I ask you, please, I am scratching my eyes out, what is new here? Where is the Change? What policy is being described that has not been repeatedly flogging and fleecing We The Exhausted Taxpayers for the past thirty years? Please tell me! Change? Gawd! If this is change, please, please keep it! We’ve had way too much of it already! We’re drowning in change.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both cut from the same ultra-leftist cloth. Either one would offer the standard menu of ultra-liberal approaches to government – which is to say they would both be walking disasters. But new? Different? Hardly. They are no different – just more extreme. 

However they are right in one regard. If either one is elected, they will make those changes, and this country will go in a radically different direction than it has been for the past eight years. It will be the accelerated path to ruin socialism always guarantees, and this time, it may well be permanent. Whatever John McCain’s failings, they pale by comparison to the train wreck we can expect from either Hillary or Barack. Their election could spell the end for our constitutional republic. This may well be the most important election in our nation’s history. Vote well.

But, as we all now know, Time was either careless or knowingly complicit in provoking this controversy, for it was quickly discovered that the basis for their story was “massacre” pictures provided by an al Qaeda front group. Insurgents captured subsequently told interrogators that the whole thing was a set up – that al Qaeda deliberately planned the ambush to create this propaganda nightmare.

Nonetheless, anytime our vaunted Fourth Estate levels an accusation against the U.S. military, especially those damned, bloodthirsty Marines, it must be investigated to the last speck. And even if their case is based on the thinnest of evidence, the legal scum issuing forth from the bowels of our military bureaucracy must find a fall guy to cover their inept asses, if only to prove they weren’t total idiots in prosecuting the case in the first place. Sorry, that ship already sailed. I wish they could switch places on the front lines with these honorable men they are scapegoating! They might get a whole new perspective, or at least do us all a favor and self-select themselves out of the gene pool in the first firefight.

On May 17, 2006, the unspeakably vile Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania joined the fray and gained new infamy with these inflammatory comments:

It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

He made the statement without a shred of evidence, and having been proved wrong on all points, still refuses to apologize.

In any event, having conducted repeated investigations which found nothing and having exonerated four of the eight Marines originally charged, and despite the recommendations of the investigating officer that the whole case be dropped, the Marine Corps nonetheless is relentlessly moving forward with Courts Martial for the other four: SSgt. Frank Wuterich, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, 1^st Lt. Andrew Grayson and LCpl. Steve Tatum.

This is probably all old news to you. One thing you may not know however, is that SSgt. Wuterich attempted to sue Congressman Murtha for his public statement. According to Wikipedia:

On August 2, 2006, Marine Corps staff sergeant Frank D. Wuterich, who led the accused squad, filed suit for libel and invasion of privacy. The filing states Murtha "tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was "covered up." Wuterich was charged with 13 counts of murder on December 21, 2006.

And while all the murder charges have been dismissed against Wuterich, he still faces a laundry list of other charges – including nine charges of voluntary manslaughter – which provide penalties of up to twenty-nine years in prison. This is by far the most among any of the four Marines still facing charges, Do I detect a whiff of revenge coming from the Congressman’s office? I wouldn’t put anything past that despicable cretin, but it also may explain why he refuses to apologize. To do so might work in favor of SSgt. Wuterich’s suit.

In any event, the prosecution keeps losing. A court recently denied prosecution efforts to subpoena edited comments from a CBS 60 minutes interview of SSgt. Wuterich. According to press reports, the prosecutor, Marine Capt. Nicholas L. Gannon, claimed Wuterich admitted on these edited pieces of tape “that he did in fact order his men to ‘shoot first and ask questions later.’”

Is this the prosecution’s rationale for continuing this inane trial? Here are the facts: The Marines were IED blasted and ambushed with one dead and two wounded. The enemy took shelter in a house of unknown occupancy, which the Marines were ordered to clear. The enemy regularly rigs bombs to civilians, including women and children, uses them as shields while shooting at us, dresses in civilian clothes, and regularly tortures, mutilates and murders civilians. One insurgent came out of a house carrying a baby with the family around him. What were the Marines supposed to do, let him shoot at them with impunity? If SSgt. Wuterich directed his squad to “shoot first and ask questions later,” I call that good counsel!

What planet is that prosecutor on? Is this supposed to be what passes for evidence?!? I asked USMC spokesman LtCol. Sean Gibson this exact question. His response was typically high-minded evasiveness:

Our Marines are disciplined and well trained. We adhere to the Law of Armed Conflict and the Rules of Engagement in order to successfully execute our mission while minimizing harm to non-combatants.

 I know all that! But does the Law of Armed Conflict provide guidelines as to behavior against enemies that dress as civilians while using real civilians as human shields and children as walking bombs? What about the Geneva Convention? Its guidelines are surprisingly clear. Terrorists have NO legal standing, and even were they signatories to the Convention, which they aren’t, would lose the benefit of its legal protections the minute they start behaving this way. They can legally be shot on sight, as soldiers out of uniform from both sides routinely were during WW II.

By Jim Simpson

President George W. Bush has been the recipient of the most concerted, hate-filled, propaganda campaign ever launched against a sitting President. Washington’s bureaucracy has aided and abetted this outrageous Democrat offensive by conducting a deliberate intelligence misinformation and sabotage war. The mantras have been repeated so many times, they have insinuated themselves into our daily jargon. “There were no WMD,” Bush’s “misadventure in Iraq,” or “The President’s failed Iraq policy.” Or as someone recently said to me: “I just think he’s so stupid.” Mention the name “Bush” and people bow and shake their heads. It is as though no one even wants to acknowledge we have a President by that name. Bumper stickers declare: “I Can’t Wait for 2008.” Many conservative pundits have participated in this pile on. That the Bush presidency is an unmitigated disaster is a given even among conservatives who should know better.

There is nothing new in the pattern, except for its nonstop intensity. All recent Republican Presidents have faced overt hostility from the press and popular culture. And as their time got short, the vitriol always intensified. Reagan capitulated early, handing up sacrificial lambs during Iran/Contra and offering little support for one of the most qualified Judicial Nominees in our nation’s history, Robert Bork, who was forced to face an unprecedented wave of personal attacks without the support of the President who nominated him. In recalling the Reagan years, this is often overlooked.

In typical fashion, the Republican establishment has once again capitulated and completely surrendered the argument to its enemies. Many Republican Washington insiders see this as an act of self preservation. The cacophony of negative press stories drowns out any voice that does not follow their script. One becomes self-conscious and intimidated. Why say anything if to do so risks the mass media turning their merciless invective on you?

Also, Washington insiders live in Washington. They are trying to live dual lives: supporting a Party that stands for American values in a city that doesn’t want them, while simultaneously attending cocktail parties, joining clubs and sending their children to school with these same people. But what do they expect? Republicans, whether they earn it or not, represent the Party of principle, and are thus a threat to Washington’s deeply embedded culture of corruption. They will never have an easy time of it.

Recall the experience of liberal Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR). He was hailed by feminists for supporting their causes – until he made the mistake of groping one or two of them. Then the harpy brigade descended. For all the invective one would have thought he murdered babies. But lecherous Teddy keeps on groping while Bill Clinton gets a pass on rape. Packwood’s real error: he became a vulnerable Republican, and Democrats will always use the opportunity to rid themselves even of Republicans who vote their way - much better to have an always reliable fellow Democrat. That is how Democrats reward “maverick” Republicans.

Every President has had his failings, and President Bush is no different, from his incomprehensible defense of illegal immigrants, the Medicare prescription drug program and his frustratingly suicidal habit of neither articulating nor defending his positions. But despite it all, I suggest to you that he deserves much more credit than he has been getting, even from his staunchest supporters.

We also discount the huge effect of his appointments to the federal bench. Supreme Court judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts will be with us for a while. A Newsmax article recently reported that, according to the Court’s Federal Judicial Center, Republican judicial appointments now outnumber Democrats’ 463 to 350. Bush has appointed 258 appellate judges, and unlike some Republican appointments in the past, most of his are solid conservatives. Seven of ten sitting judges on the crucial DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently overturned DC’s onerous handgun ban, are Republican appointments, three of those by G.W. Bush.

He regularly sidetracks harmful legislation, despite his supposed “lame duck” status. He vetoed the Democrats “SCHIP” bill, (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) which would have granted free health inusrance to “children” over 21 years of age and increased coverage for people earning three times the poverty level. It was correctly identified as “back-door socialized medicine.” He got the worst parts of an ill-conceived Democrat energy bill removed by threatening a veto. And there are countless other similar actions that we either don’t notice or take for granted.

George W. Bush and the current crop of Congressional Republicans have been branded as “big spenders.”  While they sadly have earned this label, don’t pin any hopes on Democrats for reversing the trend. For a good laugh, read my earlier article on Democrats much-ballyhooed and completely disingenuous restoration of PAYGO (Pay-As-You-Go) spending restrictions. Moreover, while Democrats’ disingenuously harp on Bush deficits, by historical standards the deficit is small and declining. At $163 billion, the deficit now absorbs a mere 1.2 percent of GDP, significantly lower than the historical average. Even if you add in the recently passed, paltry, $150 billion "stimulus package," the deficit only rises to 2.3 percent of GDP. But even at its 2004 high water mark, the deficit absorbed only 3.6 percent of GDP – less than the highest deficit of the Clinton presidency, 1993, which consumed 3.9 percent of GDP.

This is because, thanks in large part to his tax cuts, we have had a robust economy for most of G.W. Bush’s two terms, despite the enormously recessionary impacts of the 9-11 attacks and the Dot-Com-driven stock market bust. You wouldn’t know this to listen to the gloom and doom economic reporting by the mass media, however.

But Bush’s greatest failure, according to the partisan naysayers and a few hapless Republican fools, is his record on Iraq. I submit to you that his leadership as Commander in Chief, while imperfect, has been head and shoulders over any other President in recent history. Think back.

Lyndon Johnson’s disgracefully timid and incompetent micromanaging of the Vietnam War needlessly cost tens of thousands of young American lives. Rather than admit it and change, Johnson took his marbles and went home, resigning in disgrace. It was much more than he deserved. Following the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, Reagan impotently withdrew all U.S. forces, rather than face off the terrorist supporting states responsible: Syria and Iran. George H.W. Bush’s unwillingness to finish the job in Iraq further encouraged the world’s thugs to believe that they had nothing to fear from the United States.

Clinton’s ignoble blundering in Somalia and impotent gestures toward Iraq further cemented the reputation of American political leaders as feckless cowards. It was discovered in after action analysis that Clinton’s much ballyhooed air campaign against Yugoslavia, where a 30,000 ft. altitude insured pilot safety, destroyed only about 5 or 6 tanks, not the hundreds initially reported. (The rest were decoys.) Was Clinton really concerned about pilot safety, or did he just want to spare his communist friends any serious damage? Given his publicized contempt for the military and his many communist connections, I suspect the latter. In either case, his much vaunted air campaign was in fact an abject failure. And now with the recent attacks on the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, it appears the policies he put in place aren’t exactly getting a warm welcome.

While George W. Bush has clearly made mistakes in his prosecution of the War in Iraq, he has, unlike other leaders, had the courage to admit and correct many of those mistakes. Halting the attack on Fallujah in the spring of 2004 was a mistake – corrected. Allowing the Madhi Army free rein was a mistake – corrected. The pre-Petraeus conventional approach, a mistake – corrected. Few political leaders in recent times have been willing to do this in any circumstance, let alone during a shooting war. And Bush’s unflinching determination to prosecute this war in the face of a relentless, overwhelmingly hostile, even seditious Western media campaign to discredit the entire effort, and treacherous, underhanded political and bureaucratic sabotage, may yet see this conflict to a successful conclusion.

We must stop and recognize that this tidal wave of negativity is manufactured relentlessly by our almost uniformly leftist, anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-American mass media (with a few notable exceptions), in collusion with the leftist Washington political establishment. Nothing any Republican does will ever satisfy them. Like the Iranians or North Koreans, they welcome Republican attempts at conciliation as a ripe opportunity to take further advantage. They will never like or agree with them. They want to destroy them. And they may well succeed in the upcoming election cycle if we don’t come to our senses.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be unmitigated disasters for this country if elected. As a diehard, committed Bolshevik however, Hillary is the more dangerous of the two, and also the more electable. Yes that’s right. I have said since the beginning, as far as her electability is concerned, she is not even thinking about getting a majority of voters. Like her husband before her, she is counting on the entrance of a third party candidate to split the republican vote. As I suggested early on, this could well be New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Despite yet more denials that he intends to pursue an independent candidacy, I continue to think Bloomberg "doth protest too much." If Hillary pulls out in Texas or Ohio, this scenario remains a distinct possibility.

Get it through your head and get over it! The next election cycle is critical to the survival of our Constitutional Republic. Whatever failings you see in our government and leaders, Republicans must come together and reassert the values they stand for: a strong America, lower taxes, limited government, individual rights, individual responsibility and a healthy, mature, decent culture – American values. With all its failings the Republican Party is yet America’s last hope. We American citizens may not be able to rescue America from the un-Americans, but we should at least stop assisting them in our own defeat.  We can start by acknowledging and defending the record of this American President and reaffirm our support for the Republican Party – no matter who the candidate is.

By Jim Simpson

It’s official. The war in Iraq is now a “Civil War,” according to our vaunted Fourth Estate. In the Sunni Triangle especially, things have not been going well. Every day, dozens of Iraqis (yesterday it was over 100) are killed in bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and drive-by shootings. Every day U.S. casualties mount.

If you believe the media, this is not and never was a “central front in the ‘Global War on Terror.’” It only provoked Islamic terrorists to take up arms in a country that was stable, if not exactly democratic. Saddam died ignominiously and probably should have been spared. Iraq is descending rapidly into a chaos we can’t prevent in a conflict in which we will never prevail.

Despite these unassailable facts, and the equally unassailable recommendations of the venerable Infirm Seniors, whoops, Iraq Study Group, knuckle-dragger George W. Bush has ignored everyone and willfully proceeded with his plan to “surge” 20,000 plus troops into Baghdad.

Not enough! Won’t help! Too many! Lost cause! Blah, blah, blah…

Meanwhile, the new Democrat led Congress has reliably reaffirmed its status as the Treason Party with a demoralizing resolution of no confidence in the troops’ ability to finish the job. Predictably however, they have also shown their inveterate cowardice by being unwilling to make it a resolution with any teeth. It only serves to demoralize without offering solutions.

Okay, okay, enough already! Instead of drawing battle lines and calling names, let’s really ask the question: Why should we stay?

Finishing the job in Iraq is absolutely critical to our future national survival, but not for the reasons generally cited.

Yes, “Bush Lied” nutcases, Saddam did have WMD, and his connections to al Qaeda were beyond doubt. If Bill Clinton’s 1998 statements don’t convince you, then the many documents since seized in Iraq proving the same thing probably won’t either. But then, why should they? You are nutcases after all. Anyone else interested in revisiting this issue is directed here for an exhaustive treatise on the subject.

Sure, Iraq is a rallying point for terrorists. It was before we invaded, so why not now, when they can practice on real, live targets? Sure, it’s better to kill them over there than over here. Of course, an Iraq left to the terrorists will descend into a horrible bloodbath (as though it wasn’t one now.) Indisputably, an abandoned Iraq will become a new outpost for Iranian aggression. Undeniably, the entire region, including our key ally, Israel, will come under immediate threat.

Absolutely. Without a doubt.

Well, if those aren’t good enough reasons, then why should we stay? Actually, they are good enough reasons. But they are not the critical reason.

The critical reason we must stay is that we are not so much fighting one particular enemy as we are a strategy. This strategy has defeated us multiple times over the years, and we have yet to effectively confront it. No matter the enemy, no matter the circumstance, it has always been the same. It finds succinct voice in the words of Moscow trained North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, who first articulated it in 1950 as the strategy the communists would use to defeat the French (as quoted in Bernard Fall’s prophetic book, Street Without Joy):

The enemy will pass slowly from the offensive to the defensive. The blitzkrieg will transform itself into a war of long duration. Thus, the enemy will be caught in a dilemma: he has to drag out the war in order to win it and does not possess, on the other hand, the psychological and political means to fight a long drawn-out war.

As every American should know, almost every enemy we have faced since Hitler has adopted this strategy in one form or another. Indeed, we would have faced the same thing during WW II as well, had Hitler not made the fatal error of invading the Soviet Union. In doing so, he turned the vocal and widespread American communist movement –- even then disproportionately represented within our media, entertainment and political establishments –- against him. Overnight, prominent American isolationists (read communist sympathizers) miraculously converted into strident patriots clamoring for war. For a full treatment of this untold story, read my article, The Great Unpatriotic War. You won’t find it in many history books, but it is essential to a complete understanding of the problem we face.

What we must realize is our greatest enemy has been ourselves. At critical times, against a myriad of adversaries, we have fallen victim to self-doubt. What we have lacked in all these conflicts is the will to do what is necessary to win. And if we are ever going to successfully defend ourselves against a growing list of deadly foes, we must overcome this chronic failing.

The first time was Korea. Despite their bluster, neither the Soviets nor the Chinese had the wherewithal to defeat us in Korea had we chosen to win. We made plenty of mistakes, but the issue was never really in doubt. We demonstrated our ability first against the North Korean army then against the communist Chinese. But instead of deciding to win, we decided to merely stop and hold. We lost resolve. This critical loss of will against communist aggression set the stage for the many more that were to follow.

We had our next big opportunity in Vietnam, but we blew that too. As in Iraq today, we were winning. The Phoenix Program and other efforts had effectively pacified large portions of South Vietnam. The Communists lost the Tet Offensive. We obliterated the Viet Cong infrastructure, something Walter Cronkite apparently forgot to mention in his defeatist broadcast often cited as the turning point for public opinion against the War. From then on the North Vietnamese had to use mostly conventional forces against us –- forces we almost always defeated in battle.

Realizing that about 80 percent of North Vietnam’s war materiel came by boat, Nixon’s decision to mine Haiphong Harbor brought North Vietnam’s critical military resupply operations to a standstill. Shortly after, the communists came back to the Paris Peace Talks. They had no choice. The instruments of war had been denied them. This idea, like many other good ones, was posed early on, but Johnson, cowardly Democrat, ignored them.

We could have succeeded in Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Somalia and countless other places as well, but in each circumstance we were defeated by our own self-doubt. We can refight those intellectual battles too, if you like, and I will win, because the facts are on my side. But these are irrelevant, because the truth is, we lost. We left, often after some particularly harrowing event, such as the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, or “Blackhawk Down” in Somalia. Or we gave up after some perceived loss, like 1968’s Tet Offensive. We compounded these “losses” into humiliating defeats by walking out. In each case, our decision sprang from national self-doubt.

Like most problems of the twentieth century, the root causes can be traced to the Left. It has been said elsewhere, but cannot be repeated enough: the American Left wants the United States to fail. They are a genuine fifth column, and their stiletto-tongued liars have killed as many American warriors as enemy bullets. Their propaganda machine has enlisted countless millions of our gullible youth, and their subversive tactics undermine the effectiveness of churches, schools, institutions and government, while they divert funds to favored projects and leaders. The Left is a blood-sucking parasite on the body politic, and we are losing a lot of blood.

As American Thinker contributor J.R. Dunn explains:

The Iraq War was a godsend for the American left, something they’d have had to invent if it hadn’t happened on its own. It allowed the entire War on Terror to be chopped and fit into the already existing intellectual template, enabled all the old slogans to be revived, all the dusty concepts to be trotted out anew. It has turned the overall war, one of the most justified conflicts in this country’s history, a belated defensive response against an ugly and murderous enemy, into the traditional shadow play of murderous military officers, bloody-handed CIA operatives, and cackling businessmen, all overseen by a bulging-browed Karl Rove, operating from some Goldfingeresque headquarters buried far beneath the Crawford ranch. The result is a nation slowly edging toward the same paralysis that afflicted it during the 1970s.

It is a familiar refrain, easy to recognize and widely understood by practically every one of us. When things begin to look a bit messy; our stridently Leftist media takes up the mantle for the enemy and pounds home our losses. My Lai, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay become slogans for an opposition determined to vilify our efforts while calling demonic enemies “Minutemen.”

Their hyper-criticism fans the flames of division within Congress, the administration, the military and the country at large. Patriotic politicians begin to quail. Liberal politicians, those self-serving mouthpieces for the treasonous movements who feed them, protest, demand, accuse, hold hearings, press conferences, etc., as they are doing right now, for the sole purpose of reinforcing our self-doubt. Before the war, many of these same critics spoke the popular mantra of “getting behind the president,” but then lunged at the political opportunity created when inevitable and often tragic mistakes of a shooting war started to occur.

This is one of the most revolting demonstrations of the political Left’s utterly self-serving nature. The public’s acquiescence in this behavior also reflects on a broader scale the long-term impact these repeated assaults on our national conscience have had. We should all be out there calling for their heads! Instead we just throw up our hands in a futile gesture of exhausted disgust. People like this should not have a forum, much less a grand place of honor within the fourth estate.

The point is, this problem is entirely of our own making. Quoting J.R. Dunn again:

As we have seen, this is no natural turn of events. There is nothing inevitable or unavoidable about it. It is entirely synthetic, the byproduct of an effort by our intellectual elite to serve an ideology now long dead. Our belief in ourselves as a nation, in our role and mission on the international stage, has been undermined for fifty years and more. There is not a level of society, from day laborer to corporate CEO, who has not been touched by this dogma. Not a single institution (with the professional military perhaps excepted) has been unaffected.

Now it has become a well-oiled machine, the victorious champion of many a campaign. The terrorists expect CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, and virtually all other major dailies to grossly exaggerate the problems in Iraq while completely overlooking positive developments. They expect Democrats to criticize the President when some operation goes awry. They expect shills like Chris “Softballs” Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and William “The Mercenary” Arkin to ridicule the war effort. They expect Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the like to take every opportunity to castigate the president when terrorist bombs start going off. In fact, they rely on it. They plan on it. This political equation is the guiding principle behind all their actions.

This strategy must be defeated. It is a strategy that will be used again and again until we have no more places to retreat. It is a strategy that will ultimately bring our enemies finally, irrevocably to our shores, and with it will come the anarchy, mass murder, torture and collapse we have thus far largely avoided. It will signal the end of the world as we know it. For our grand experiment, the only stable counterbalance in an increasingly unstable world, is the last hope for all others, friend and foe alike.

In order to defeat this strategy, we must acknowledge and confront the enemy here at home. Knowingly or otherwise, the president’s critics are aiding and abetting the terrorists by hammering away at our national resolve to see this action through. They are aiding and abetting the terrorists by belittling the hard work and blood sacrifices of our men in uniform.

But they support the troops, really they do.

No they don’t!

They are the voice of a movement that has sought to destroy this country from within ever since their first odious agents crawled out from under some Bolshevik rock in the early part of the twentieth century. Today the Democrat party is the repository of that dogma and Hillary Rodham Clinton its personification. You must be convinced by now that these people are serious.

They are sowing doubt, once again, into the minds of those on active duty, who now have to confront the possibility, as happened in Vietnam, of making all those sacrifices in vain. Families who lost sons in Vietnam and everywhere else also have to confront that bitter pain again as once more, their elected leaders miserably let them down.

It’s bad enough when those in uniform die for a good cause. But now families of those currently in Iraq have to confront the thought that their sons and daughters too might die for nothing.

One former Army intelligence officer recently told me that “we never have won and cannot win a guerilla war.” This statement has to be the most idiotic statement I have recently heard and it has had an awful lot of competition. If we can never win why do we even fight? Why do we even bother with a military? Iraq is a nation of 26 million people. If we cannot win there, where can we win? If any enemy who adopts this strategy can win everywhere and always, why don’t we just get it over with and appoint Osama Bin Laden (or his running mate, Hillary) President for Life?

We must recognize the enemy for what it is and move forward in spite of it. This is what George W. Bush is attempting to do with his troop “surge.” Is it enough? With this gallery of traitors occupying Congress I am not optimistic. We nonetheless would be wise to recognize an ages-old problem that has confronted open societies throughout history. To quote Cicero:

A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. … He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.

Our entire nation is down with this virus. Radical surgery appears to be the only recourse. During the Civil War, Lincoln imposed martial law and ruled by decree. (Read a good summary of the issue by Rhode Island Supreme Court Chief Judge Frank Williams, here.) Will that be necessary now? Or will those members of our political class not already given to our enemies finally step up to the plate and pass legislation that effectively deals with agents of influence, agitators, and other traitors? The danger from these people is just as real as any battlefield. More so, for it threatens the very survival of our nation. And as our nation goes, so goes the world.

God save us.

Freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

By now it should be news all over America that the New York Times aired on its website, footage of a U.S. Soldier being shot in the head. They did this in direct violation of their agreement with the military and never bothered to ask the unfortunate family - who had not yet been notified of their son’s death - before airing it. Read about it here. And even after issuing a quasi-apology, they continued showing the video! What kind of apology is that??

In another outrage, CBS reporter Lara Logan recently filed a video report from Iraq, showing recently killed Iraqi soldiers, which looks like footage she actually took. She did not mention anything about the video’s source, which makes a point of lambasting U.S. troops. Turns out much of it is an al Qaeda propaganda film aired a few weeks ago. Where did she get it? How did she get it? Most importantly, Why did she work it into her story as though it were her own? Why didn’t she tell us it was an al Qaeda video? See Michelle Malkins’ report on it here.

This week, CNN’s parent, Turner Broadcasting, revealed yet again its blatant contempt for our national security in a TV promotional stunt which closed down highways, bridges and even part of the Charles River in Boston, MA. The gag used blinking electronic devices lit in the shapes of cartoon characters, one of which was reportedly giving the finger. They were placed on bridges, highways and a subway station. What were police bomb squads supposed to do, ignore these devices and laugh it off? Is it all just a joke to Turner?

Boston’s mayor was not amused and is planning to press charges. It’s about time. District Attorney Daniel Conley was quoted as saying:

"Apparently however, Boston was not the only victim. Turner later admitted having placed similar devices in 9 other cities over the past few weeks: New York; Los Angeles; Chicago; Atlanta; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Austin; Philadelphia; and San Francisco."

One must ask: are they insane? Or are they so engorged with heedless arrogance that they feel they can do whatever they want? Either way, concern for the American people has to be at the bottom of their list.

Yet another demonstration of media contempt can be found in the following insulting screed by Washington Post columnist William Arkin “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People.” He wrote it in reaction to an NBC imbed’s report citing soldiers’ frequent complaints that the media misreports their efforts in Iraq and damages morale. He calls them “naïve,” and answers their complaints with the following rebuke:

"These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect."

As though that weren’t enough, he offers this cynical observation about the true character of our fighting forces:

"…the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."

The final paragraph is especially repugnant:

"America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don’t believe America needs a draft though I imagine we’d be having a different discussion if we had one."

Can you believe that? “America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.” No. Mr. Arkin, you need to ponder what you owe those in uniform. I think Mr. Arkin might feel far differently if he found himself staring at the cutting of an al Qaeda butcher’s knife a la Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg – a very distinct possibility if they succeed in getting a foothold here, rather than being eliminated in Iraq as they are now by our “naïve,” “ungrateful” troops.

Words cannot express what kind of despicable character his “journalist” must be. What towering arrogance! Words cannot express the contemptible depths to which the Washington Post must have sunk to hire such scum and willingly publish such tripe.

The mass media has gone beyond decency in this conflict. If anyone had any doubt before that the news media is actively against us, this evidence should settle it once and for all.

At this point I can’t even imagine what kind of restitution the leftist media could pay to restore their credibility in the eyes of the public. They are not only giving aid and comfort to our enemies, they are our enemies. It’s time to take matters into our own hands and boycott these organizations into bankruptcy. As far as I’m concerned, giving them a cent of our time or money is tantamount to aiding and abetting treason.

Freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences