“Our son… was killed in Iraq. Though we miss him terribly, we’re grateful that FOX News was there to tell the story. Thank you for your coverage… we now know more about the heroism… of all the U.S. and Iraqi troops and the positive changes they are bringing about.”
That excerpt, from a letter sent by bereaved parents grieving the loss of a son in Iraq, is typical of the mail I receive each time I return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
After eight trips to where the Global War on Terror is fought every day by soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines, I now have scores of such missives. They have come from parents, spouses, siblings and the children of the fallen. Their letters are always painful, often eloquent, and invariably hopeful the sacrifice of their loved ones will not have been in vain.
Last Tuesday evening, less than a week before tomorrow’s celebration of the 229th anniversary of American Independence, President Bush spoke to the world about the war in which these young Americans fell. Standing before soldiers and their families at Fort Bragg, N.C. — an audience of those who serve in mortal danger — Mr. Bush made an articulate and persuasive presentation on why winning this war is a moral imperative, and what it will take to do so.
Sadly, the so-called “Loyal Opposition” and much of our mainstream media seem not to have heard. In their efforts to disparage the commander in chief, they denigrate those who serve in harm’s way and dishonor the fallen.
The applause at the “Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces” had barely stopped before the left-leaning leadership of the Democrat Party launched a vicious partisan riposte aimed at gaining political advantage at the expense of our troops. The remarkable similarities of their hollow critiques offer evidence of their desperation.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “The president’s frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of September 11, knowing that there is no connection between September 11 and the war in Iraq.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, apparently forgetting he voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom, offered a parallel response: “The president’s numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm.”
He then added, ” ’Staying the course,’ as the president advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.”
Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, rushed to the microphones and listed the various countries from which the September 11, 2001, attackers had originated. He then observed breathlessly, “There were no Iraqis.”
Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Forbes Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, accused Mr. Bush of creating a “third rationale” for the war: “The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it’s to combat the hotbed of terrorism.”
“No connection between September 11 and the war in Iraq.” “No way forward.” “A third rationale.” All these statements — from leaders of the radical political left were not only echoed throughout the Islamic world by Al Jazeera — they also deny what Mr. Bush has been saying since this war began.
Nine days after the September 11, 2001, attack that murdered nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children on American soil, President Bush said: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. … Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. … Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. … The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.”
Four months later, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush told the world: “Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. … Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.”
On Tuesday evening, President Bush once again enumerated the threats we face, articulated a strategy for victory so our troops can come home, and reaffirmed his resolve: “After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in that war. … Our mission in Iraq is clear. We’re hunting down terrorists. We’re helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. … We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.”
The Democratic Party leaders disagree with the president’s assessment. It would have been interesting had any of the “reporters” covering these critics asked the question of Mrs. Pelosi or Messrs Reid, Reed and Kerry: “If you don’t want to hunt down terrorists in Mosul, Ramadi or Al Qa’im, Iraq — would you rather we hunted for them in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Providence or Boston?”
The president has consistently presented facts the liberal leaders of the Democratic Party don’t like — but that doesn’t change the facts. Though they offer no alternative, they say we cannot “stay the course.” Such rhetoric not only encourages our adversaries, it dishonors those who have fallen.
Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.