As you know by now, when it comes to my show, I like to mix things up. One day we’re throwing cats out of airplanes. The next day we’re detailing the dangers of our continued participation in the United Nations. A few days later I’ll have crazed listeners waving dildos at the poor sap in our mailroom.
I don’t believe there’s anyone who wants to listen to serious discussions of politics day after day after day. As Brother Dave once said, man cannot live on bread alone. He must have peanut butter.
Still, this is a book, not a show. You can put it down anytime you want, and pick it up again a few days later (assuming you’ve bought it, that is). So before I turn you loose, I need to get a few things off my chest about President Bush and the war in Iraq.
Let’s begin with terminology. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is commonly, and erroneously, referred to as the “war on terror.” The enemy here is not terror. Terror is a tactic. The enemy is radical Islam—or, if you prefer, Islamic fascism.
The Islamic fascists are dedicated to the destruction of the West. They are zealots who truly believe that it’s their destiny to bring the world under Islamic law.
There are many books out there written by people far more knowledgeable than I on this subject. Among the most prolific is Robert Spenser, whose books include:
And there are many others—among them Mark Steyn’s amazing book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, in which he details the all-but-inevitable Muslim conquest of Europe (the future Eurabia). These excellent books and many others have established beyond a doubt that the threat of Islamic fascism is real, it’s imminent, and it is largely unrecognized by the American people.
The Islamic terrorist 1 attacks of 9/11 completely changed the nature of the Bush presidency. I also believe it changed the nature of George W. Bush himself.
On September 15, 2006, I was privileged to spend nearly two hours in the Oval Office with President Bush and four other radio talk show hosts.2 The ground rules were simple. We could discuss anything we wanted with the president, but we could not take notes, nor could we quote the president directly.3
I left that office with two distinct impressions of George W. Bush. First, that those people (usually on the left) who judge George Bush to be ignorant are hugely mistaken. Second, that George Bush is absolutely dedicated to the cause of defending this country against any further attacks by Islamic fascists, and to destroying those who perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.
I found areas of disagreement with the president during that meeting. He believes that Islam itself is truly a peaceful religion. I do not. But he clearly believes that the course of action he has pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq was correct, despite errors made along the way.
I’m no military strategist, any more than the many in the media who have been so critical of Bush over the past four years. I do recognize, however, that mistakes were made.
Perhaps we should have kept the Iraqi army intact. Maybe we should have kept some of Saddam’s lower-level officers in charge of their commands. We surely could have done more to create an atmosphere of law and order in the days after Saddam’s downfall, when rampant looting turned Baghdad into an Arabian version of New Orleans after Katrina. More troops? Maybe so.
One thing I’m sure of, though, is that the Democrat Party and its fellow travelers in the mainstream media were dedicated to the cause of making sure that Bush’s plans for Iraq did not come to fruition.
Democratic hatred of all things Republican began with the ill-fated Republican revolution of 1994. The Democrats simply could not believe that the voters had turned their backs on them after so many decades of dedicated service in the cause of replacing freedom with security.
Then and there, Democrats made a vow to one day return to power in Washington, and then to make sure that they would never lose again.
In 2000, the Democrats thought they had it made. Al Gore had been bred from the cradle forward to be nothing less than president of the United States. It was his very reason for existing, his destiny.
When Gore lost Florida by so thin a margin—and when all the legal maneuvering of the Democrats failed to overturn those results—the sense of outrage and dismay in Democrat ranks only increased. Never mind that their hero, Al Gore, had failed to carry his home state. Bush had won by the closest of margins, and for that he must be destroyed. His presidency must fail.
The attacks of 9/11 did bring about a temporary reprieve in the effort to destroy the Bush presidency. For a brief period, Americans were united in their determination to avenge those attacks and to bring those responsible to justice, if not to the gallows.
The passage of time has now served to soothe the angers and fears of the American people. This, in turn, has given the Democrats free rein to continue their campaign to destroy Bush’s presidency.
Most people don’t know that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was made during the Clinton presidency, not the Bush administration. Saddam’s removal from power became the official policy of the United States government long before 9/11 and long before George Bush took the oath of office.
All of that was forgotten, though, when President Bush sent the troops in.
The goals that President Bush set were laudable: Remove a dangerous and murderous dictator from power, and establish a beachhead for freedom in the Middle East.
Soon after the invasion of Iraq, one pundit—I can’t recall which one; they seemed to breed like flies around then—said that if our efforts in Iraq were successful, history would see it as one of the most noble accomplishments in world history.
Democrats, however, were determined that no such history would ever be written.
That’s right. I believe that the Democrat Party resolved early to defeat Bush’s efforts to bring peace, economic liberty, and a freely elected representative government to the people of Iraq. They could pick up the pieces later, when they came to power. But success must not be achieved on Bush’s watch.
Think back to some of the reactions of Middle East leaders to Bush’s removal of Saddam from power.
Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi suddenly became a pussycat, announcing an end to his nuclear programs and playing nice with the West. The House of Saud announced broader voting privileges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Throughout the Middle East, strong-men and leaders watched events in Iraq with a wary eye. Would George Bush move beyond Iraq if he felt that any other country posed a threat? Would they be attacked if they were discovered hiding any of Saddam’s weapons? Just how dedicated was the American President to creating a free nation where Saddam Hussein once ruled?
Well, it didn’t take long for the Arab world to recognize that things weren’t going all that well for George W. Bush. America was not unified; indeed, there were deep divisions about his policies. Democrats were calling for an exit strategy before the smoke cleared from the first attacks. American pundits were decrying the loss of civilian life. Reports of American troop successes were hard to find.
Within months, the Arab world knew that the American people weren’t likely to stick this one out. Day after day they saw attacks on Bush, his secretary of defense, and virtually all aspects of the war.
The Islamic fascists, like many Americans, recognized that the American media was working from a clearly defined template. Stories that reflected American successes in Iraq, that would make the president look good, must be downplayed. Stories that would embarrass the president or demoralize our troops would be played up.
Abu Ghraib, anyone?
Day after day the stories on the network newscasts detailed bombings and death, even as day after day American troops were lauded by the Iraqi people for building schools and hospitals.
The Islamic fascists watched, and learned.
They knew that if they could just maintain a steady stream of suicide bombings resulting in the deaths of American soldiers, the American people would grow quickly tired and throw in the towel. They knew that their suicide bombings would lead the nightly newscasts, so they stepped up their campaign.
It became standard operating practice after Abu Ghraib for any Islamic terrorist being held by coalition forces to scream torture. They knew that the media would pick up the story and run with it, even without any corroborating evidence.
Here’s the point: if the Democrat Party hadn’t been so hell bent on destroying the Bush presidency—if the Democrats had shown a unified front with their commander in chief and our troops—who’s to say that complete victory in Iraq would not have been ours by now?
Just as Islamists despise weakness, they fear a determined enemy. They stopped viewing America and George Bush as a determined enemy when the Democrats, with the eager help of the leftist media, started their attacks.
It looks now as though the Democrats are going to get what they wanted. George Bush has been discredited, and the American people have turned against the war on Islamic fascism.
In two years, while the American people are, in all probability, electing a Democrat president, the Islamic fascists will be planning their next terrorist attack on our soil. The final show of weakness by the American people—the election of a Democrat president—will vastly encourage the Islamists.
As of today, the Islamic fascists are winning. Slowly but surely, they’re seeing their dream of conquering the West come true. It took a few simple bombs on trains to overthrow a government in Spain. Other European countries are scrambling to find ways to appease their growing Muslim populations.
Sooner or later, the American people will wake up to the threat posed by these murderous radicals. Will we fight? Of course we will.
By then, however, the price we’ll have to pay will be so much greater than the price we would have paid for complete victory in Iraq…a victory that was denied by the weakness and desire for revenge among Democrats and their media friends.
Remember one thing about these Islamic fascists.
They shoot schoolchildren in the back.