Victor Davis Hanson has yet another perceptive and coherent piece on why the Democrat’s attacks on the War on Terror fall flat. As always with VDH, it’s full of apt historical allusions and exceptionall clarity of thought. A short preview:
With all this in mind, it is hard to understand the Democrats’ logic of disaster. True, we are in an election year — the stuff of predictable hysteria. Politics, of course, is an arena in which there are no laws — a gladiatorial free-for-all that (unless you are Howard Dean) you don’t enter demanding the retiarius leave behind his net or the Thracian dull his scimitar. But still, both history and reason offer no support for the calculus of the candidates’ current invective. The party of Harry Truman has somehow boxed itself into the corner of seeing bad news from the Iraqi theater as good news for them.
The fact is support for the war is high and unwavering. We are better off with the capture of Saddam Hussein. We have made great progress in capturing or killing members of al-Qaeda worldwide. The predicted disasters that would befall us if we attacked Iraq were illusions. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan have suddenly re-evaluated their support for terrorism. The "Arab street" ended up protesting – for more of the freedom and democracy we’ve introduced into the region.
What’s sad is that many Democrats, even many thoughtful ones just simply don’t understand the magnitude of what’s been achieved here. They’re too busy in partisan name calling to stick their heads up and see that they’re on the wrong side of history. Even with the more "sensible" candidates pulling ahead, the vast majority of the Democrats have an inexplicably partisan and negative view of the world that scarcely matches the optimism of the American people.