Why We Must Fight

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay just became one of my favorite politicians.

Why? Because he has laid out the reasons why we must attack Iraq better than anyone else. This is exactly the speech President Bush needs to make in front of all America before the bombs start dropping and the troops start landing. Some selected passages:

We can be sure that our potential enemies are watching. Future enemies of freedom will also support terrorism, if we don`t defeat the current terrorist organizations.

Offers to allow UN arms inspectors back into Iraq aren’t to be taken seriously.

It`s only the disingenuous dissembling of a dictator trying to short-circuit our resolve.

His cynical, counterfeit concessions would be laughable if they weren`t treated as legitimate by some misguided observers.

But those who counsel granting Saddam the latest in an endless cycle of last chances are the same consorts of complacency who foolishly opposed liberating Kuwait.

Their reluctance to confront evil only empowered Saddam to prowl the Middle East, aiding terrorist groups and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Exactly. More UN inspections are not the answer. Saddam has already buried his programs deeper than before, and by the time inspectors land in Baghdad, he’ll have bought himself more time. Inspections failed the world once, and they will fail again.

Debate within a democracy is vital to freedom. We welcome passionate advocates with firmly held views. But men and women serving within an administration must take their instructions from the President, the commander-in-chief, and they must carry them out.

The U.S. State Department would do well to remember that it answers to the President of the United States, not the European Union.

Just for that Tom DeLay deserves a medal. That’s a statement that takes real guts, and one that needs to be made. Thank heavens someone in Congress had the chutzpah to say it.

Unfortunately, among freedom`s natural defenders, moral clarity is in short supply. Even as other powers evade their own duty to safeguard freedom and confront tyranny, we must stand firm.

The nations across the Atlantic, countries with ample experience in the perils of appeasement are unwilling or unable to summon the resolve to confront gathering evil.

These countries reflexively oppose any exercise of American power unless it`s summoned to liberate the besieged capitals of a vanquished Europe.

Europe stands paralyzed because European leaders seem unable to grasp a very fundamental principle: There’s no moral equivalence between those defending freedom and the terrorists and tyrants who seek to deny it–first to their own people, later to others.

Again, a harsh slam, but one that needed to be made. This is something the blogosphere has said for a while, and it’s refreshing to hear someone in power has the same level of moral clarity.

Many of those questioning the President’s policy have served America well for many years. And I respect their service to our country.
But I couldn’t disagree more strongly about the grave costs of avoiding a confrontation with Iraq.

Toppling Saddam would, they say, "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."

Ladies and gentlemen, these critics are dead wrong.

Removing Saddam from power and liberating the Iraqi people would do more to advance the war against terror than any step we’ve taken yet.

Removing Saddam would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state sponsor of terror: "Shape up, because the price of subsidizing terror is now more than you can afford."

Returning their government to the people of Iraq would signal democratic reformers around the region that the United States is deeply committed to expanding freedom.

It would demonstrate that we stand ready to help any willing country discover the blessings of self-government.

And, by assisting reformers in Iraq to govern themselves, we would show that the United States has no intention of ruling in place of fallen dictators.

But most importantly, ending Saddam’s dictatorship would deprive terrorist groups of refuge, training, support, and access to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

Exactly. America already is a terrorist target, and if we back down now, it only shows al-Qaeda and every other terrorist group that we’re weak and ripe for attack. This is our time to stand, and stand we must, else we show that we’ve failed to learn the bloody lessons of September 11.

There’s much more in this speech, which is why it should be read in its entirety. Rep. DeLay has made a case which is strong and clear, and shows exactly why we’re targeting Iraq for regime change. It’s good to know that in a sea of moral relativism and weak spined calls for appeasement, someone in power knows what needs to be done, and is willing to call things as they are.

(Via VodkaPundit)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.