Thursday, June 29, 2006
I hate to do this two posts in a row. But John Hinderaker, writing yesterday in Powerline, has one zinger of a post that just begs to be quoted. It's too short to excerpt, and too good to comment upon; I doubt I could improve on what he's already written.
So here you go:
Insurgents Support Our Troops![insert sound of Daniel applauding]
Eleven Sunni "insurgent" organizations have reportedly told the Iraqi government that they will lay down their arms in exchange for a series of concessions, the key one being that American forces cease all offensive operations against them and set a timetable for withdrawal within two years. The insurgents' position is actually more moderate than the liberal Democrats'; the Democrats wanted to pull out within 18 months, not 24, without getting anything in return--not even an empty promise to lay down arms. So the insurgents must really support the troops!
I'm sure there must be a flaw in that logic, but I haven't yet figured out what it is.
You know, people have been saying -- for at least the past two years -- that, when the speeches of prominent Democrats sound suspiciously like the manifestos of America's sworn enemies, this does not speak well for the Democrats.
So, no, I'm not questioning Rep. Jack Murtha's patriotism, not at all. But doesn't it make him just the least bit uncomfortable, to know that al-Qaeda agrees with him -- except that they think he's a bit too extreme?
Liberals have been screeching, for years now, that George W. Bush is doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wants him to do. That's a shaky proposition at best, of course -- assuming, among other things, that Osama sees domestic American politics the same way that American liberals do. But when the leaders of the Democratic Party -- the Howard Deans, the Nancy Pelosis, the Jack Murthas -- are demanding the same things that the insurgents are demanding... well, who's in the pocket of the enemy now?