When Winning Is A Defeat.

The Weekly Standard has an excellent piece on how basically winning in Iraq is a defeat for the Democrats. When the Democrats have put so much political energy in insisting that we have a failed policy and a failed war, they lose big time with any sort of victory for America over there. A true and sad state of affairs.

Congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle express admiration for Petraeus's leadership. I think they knew it would do no good to personally bash what was obviously a great leader. (Except for MoveOn.org of course) So they instead engaged in a bit of sidestepping verbal disagreement. Sen.Dick Durbin with his accusing Petraeus of "carefully manipulating the statistics," and Hillary's "willing suspension of disbelief" barb.

As the WS points out, this was the Democrat's worst nightmare. A man who everyone agreed was a man of integrity and leadership, telling us that the surge is working and that Iraq has turned a corner and that we have achieved tangible results in our war on terrorism.

This should have been good news all around, right? But only a defeat is good news for the Democrats. They have bet too much of their political capital on "failure."

The WS asks this very key question: Do leading Democrats want America to win this war?

David Gelernter, the author of this article, says that they do not want us to win, not because they are traitors or don't love this country, but because it would be better if we lost in order to achieve their worldview........"Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left."

A bloody war won is a defeat for the principles of pacifism. It's really that simple.

It's important to understand this I think. It isn't that Democrats are un-American, they are not. They just envision an America that is based on the values and ideals of appeasement, pacifism, and globalism. They believe in an American that doesn't fight. A passive peaceful America that sits at the table of communication with all those around the world. Evilness such as Al Quaeda only need to be understood.

Which is a nice thought, but so is a world without sickness or death, but it isn't reality and it never will be. Because there will always be those who choose to bomb, kill, torture, and defeat us. And we cannot be passive in the face of evil. As Beslan and 9-11 showed us, with our enemies there is no happy ending and no negotiation. The bloody and horrific ending is destined to be, no amount of appeasement will do. Their ending of horror and bloodshed will not change, no matter what the circumstances. Only a fierce and deadly force ending their brutality will change the outcome. That is what the Democrats will not accept.

Gelernter makes this important point: .."And those who think that our war in Iraq has nothing to do with the 9/11 murderers, or their friends whose ultimate target is America, are living in Fantasyland."

We are fighting and defeating and killing Al Qaeda in Iraq. That is simply a fact. It was Al Qaeda that flew the planes into the twin towers. It was not Iraq that flew those planes, it was not Saddam Hussein, and it was never ever said that it was. It was always clearly and honestly pointed out that Saddam had the capability to hand terrorists weapons and a safe ground in which to train to kill us. The enemy is in Iraq. No one can argue that. Democrats can stomp their feet and say they weren't there before the war, but where were they? Iran? Pakistan? Egypt? Should we have gone into those countries? A war had to be fought my friends, and it had to be fought anywhere but HERE.