By Christopher G. Adamo

 

It is long past time to speak the undiluted truth in response to Congressman John Murtha (D.-Pa.), Senator John Kerry (D.-Ma) and any of their cohorts on Capitol Hill who continually strive to demoralize Americans in the War on Terror by demanding unconditional retreat. They are not “patriotic” nor are they voices of the “loyal opposition,” for they can be neither patriotic nor loyal when “carrying the water” for the mortal enemies of America.

A reality check is once again in order, since the realities of the past five years have been completely abandoned by the left. America was attacked, on its own soil, by militant Islamists who obsessively seek its annihilation. Thousands of innocent people were indiscriminately and brutally slaughtered in a matter of minutes.

The attack was wholly unprovoked, unless one accepts the enemy’s premise that refusal to be converted to Islam, or an alliance with another nation that similarly refuses to do so, constitutes “provocation.”

Hence, America’s only option is either to accept the enemy’s terms of unconditional surrender or go on offense against that enemy. This was true in the wake of the attacks as well as during the decade leading up to them.

Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration ignored this truth and attempted a third wholly untenable “alternative,” which was to simply ignore the problem with the hope that it would go away. In retrospect, the consequences of that choice are indistinguishable from “surrender.”

Honest liberals would own up to the fact that American inaction during the ‘90’s left the nation vulnerable, and thus allowed those attacks to be successfully carried out. But then again, “honest liberals” would not be liberal.

So rather than admitting to their unwitting complicity with America’s enemies, they grudgingly waved flags and rooted for the nation in the immediate aftermath of the attacks while emotions were running high. They astutely perceived that any other response would not be tolerated.

But they quickly reverted back to their anti-American screed the moment they suspected that the tide of public opinion might be changing, and that they might have an opening to seize the moral and philosophical “high ground.”

Having vacillated continually on the terror war issue for the past five years, they saw their electoral fortunes ebb. Now, in a desperate effort to reclaim dominant status inside the Beltway that they believe to be inherently theirs, they are again on the attack. But their attack is no less directed at the heartland of America than are the attacks of the Islamists.

Every whisper of wrongful action by the U.S. military is greeted with a mix of jubilation and enthusiastic condemnation by leftists on Capitol Hill and the nightly news. Concurrently, the upbeat stories of progress and improvement in the stability of post-Hussein Iraq invariably generate skepticism and disparagement.

The President’s recent visit to Iraq, itself a great milestone on the road to total victory in that theater of the terror war, was nonetheless demeaned in every possible manner by the liberal establishment.

Just as al Zarqawi’s memos and communications indicated that the tone inside al Qaeda is getting desperate in the face of imminent defeat, so do the derisive reaction from the left to every bit of good news out of Iraq prove that liberals are becoming similarly desperate.

Their loyalties plainly do not lie with the well being of this nation. Nor can they legitimately claim any noble or patriotic motivation for continuing their campaign of declaring doom and defeat for this country.

For those on the left, every contest is solely determined only from the perspective of political gain or loss to the cause of liberalism. And time and again, the proponents of this sordid political strategy have proven themselves to be wholly indifferent to any negative consequences reaped by the nation or its military. Such behavior does not fit any definition of “loyalty.”

Moreover, it is defensible to assert that, owing to their veteran status, all criticism of anti-war mouthpieces John Kerry or John Murtha, and the political class they represent, should be censored.

Although these are among the best examples liberals are able to present as “war heroes,” any actual heroic deeds that might have been perpetrated by Kerry and Murtha occurred more than three decades ago. And particularly in Kerry’s case, the validity of such deeds is extremely dubious.

Military commendations and service awards are ultimately meant as tribute to the events of a particular period in time. Often, they represent a single episode in the life of the recipient. They were never intended as a license of lifetime immunity from criticism for any and every outlandish behavior on the part of the bearer, including de facto collaboration with the enemy

Kerry and Murtha’s strategically disastrous demands that America cut and run from the terrorist insurgency at a time when it is desperately attempting to rally its dwindling forces, belie something that is hardly less than a dark alliance between the terrorists and the American left.