- The Washington Times - Sunday, July 26, 2009



He was standing at the counter when I entered the store. As he paid the clerk, he turned, and I noticed, in this order: his beard, the T-shirt with “Marines” emblazoned on the front and then the cane. His prosthetic foot was still masked by the counter when I said, “Semper Fi, Leatherneck.”

He smiled, and replied, “Semper Fi to you too, Colonel. You were embedded with my unit in Afghanistan last year.”

We spoke for a few minutes. He had been wounded by the favorite weapon of radical Islamic terror, an improvised explosive device or roadside bomb. He’s minus some of his body, a little less mobile, preparing to re-enter civilian life and permanently proud of having served his country. As he moved to leave, he said, “We did our part. Sure hope the crowd in Washington doesn’t screw it up.”

His concern is particularly relevant when the American welfare state is the only growth industry in our country. At its core is socialized health care. The Obama administration, along with Democrats in Congress, are pushing legislation to make health insurance mandatory for every American and allow government to dictate what services will be provided to us. It is an expansive, expensive proposal requiring the most productive among us to carry the cost of medical care for all others.

That’s relevant to the young wounded Marine because Team Obama’s compassion czars first suggested some of the cost of health care for illegal immigrants and “disadvantaged” citizens should be borne by America’s combat-wounded service members.

The administration bean counters and medical magistrates discerned that charging veterans’ private insurance companies for treatment of service-connected injuries, wounds or sickness could save $540 million.

The O-Team message to our military: If you gun-toting, knife-wielding, overaged adolescents and right-wing extremists want to go off and play soldier, don’t expect us to pick up the tab if you get hurt.

After veterans organizations and pro-military citizens groups conducted a shock-and-awe campaign in the blogosphere, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the O-Team had “made the decision that combat-wounded veterans should not be billed through their insurance policies for combat-related injuries.” Hopefully, someone on Capitol Hill will actually read the most recent draft “health care reform” legislation to ensure that the fine print of this medical monstrosity doesn’t include other innovative ways to stick it to our wounded warriors.

The thought that we are likely to have more wounded apparently has occurred to the vice president. On July 23, a New York Times headline said, “Biden warns of more ‘sacrifice’ in Afghanistan.”

During a European tour, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was asked about progress in Afghanistan, and he referred to the Afghan-Pakistan border, where the fighting is uptempo, as “a place that, if it doesn’t get straightened out, will continue to wreak havoc on Europe and the United States.” For the gaffe-prone Mr. Biden, file this remark in the category of broken clocks and occasional accuracy.

“This is the place,” Mr. Biden continued, “from which the attacks of 9/11 and all those attacks in Europe that came from al Qaeda have flowed.” In an effort to quell skeptics, he went on to note that the fighting and the war “are worth the effort we are making.”

His remarks seemed directed at the press and the pollsters casting doubt on the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week asked the following question:

“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, or not?”

The survey showed 51 percent of Americans — a drop of 5 points in four months — think the war is worth fighting. Notably, this is roughly the same decline the O-Team has taken on everything from handling the economy to health care reform. It also begs for a poll question such as, “All in all, considering the incompetency of the media versus the benefits of a free press, do you think the ‘free press’ provision of the First Amendment is worth keeping?”

For the record, Afghanistan is the place from which the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned and launched. Those attacks took the lives of nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens and were the catalyst for legislative, cultural and political changes many of us had never imagined. The masters of the mainstream media are doing to the campaign in Afghanistan what they did in 2006 and 2007 in Iraq.

The left and the potentates of the press derisively labeled Iraq “Bush’s war.” But last week’s Oval Office meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Obama indicate the campaign in Iraq is all but over and won for American troops.

Some have taken to calling Afghanistan “Obama’s war.” There is some truth to that — Mr. Obama blamed Mr. Bush for “taking his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan and has “surged” troop levels there. These two campaigns, however, are just part of a bigger, broader war being waged against us by radical Islam. It is a war that deserves more than a vice president’s occasional stumble into veracity. It deserves a commander in chief’s laser focus and recognition of the sacrifice already being made by hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors and members of the Air Force, National Guard and Marines.

Oliver North is the host of “War Stories” on the Fox News Channel, the author of “American Heroes” and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide