The Significance of Bin Laden's Partisan Appeal

In light of Osama Bin Laden's videotaped message to the West (or was it a press release from DNC Chairman Howard Dean?), one might be given to muse that liberal abhorrence for the president's surveillance of incoming phone calls from known terrorists might ultimately stem from self-interest. Perhaps they simply do not want to be monitored as they share strategies and talking points with the Al Qaeda leader.

Furthermore, the DNC may decide to keep a copy of the Bin Laden tape, which could come in handy during the 2008 campaign season. Just as aspiring politicians feel compelled to pander in Spanish to the increasing numbers of "undocumented voters," so might Dean and the Democrats want to remind those "Jihadist-Americans" in their native tongue which party will best ensure that their interests are served.

While such satire may be deemed overly harsh, in truth it fails to fully convey the depths to which the current Democrat leaders, along with their cronies in the media and the blogosphere, have sunk in their efforts to promote their anti-American cause. And as one outrageous example after another unfolds before the American people in the liberal/Democrat attempt to demean and undermine the war on terror, the case for their sedition becomes ever more crystal clear.

Among the most despicable, reprehensible, and yet entirely predictable examples of recent days was the manner in which leftist Representative Tom Lantos (D.-CA) attempted to deride General David Petraeus, who appeared before Congress to present a progress report on the current operations in Iraq. Without knowing or wanting to know the facts offered by General Petraeus, Lantos pronounced his report a fraud. Thus was an honest patriot branded a "liar" by the liberal Congressman.

Of course Lantos was hardly alone. This latest sorry episode represents nothing more than a continuation of widespread ongoing liberal efforts, involving virtually every prominent Democrat political hack, to undermine America's interests in winning the terror war. Yet Lantos's abysmal screed was particularly poignant, coming as it did on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The fact that he was able to comfortably sit in his smug shallowness as he chaired the hearing, feeling no need whatsoever to tremble and hide in some fortified bunker while waiting for the terrorists to launch their latest salvo, attests to the degree of success with which the Bush Administration has prosecuted the terror war on multiple fronts. But do not expect any sincere expression of appreciation from Lantos and his kind.

One cannot help but infer that, in their alternate reality, the preservation of traditional America and its values of liberty and justice represents a greater menace to their own worldview and agenda for the future than the horror and brutality of militant Islam.

Elsewhere, the anti-war crowd continues to reveal its true nature with similar venom. In a full-page ad in the New York Times, the far-left George Soros organization "MoveOn.org," referred to the General as "General Betray Us." Yet aside from the truly juvenile nature of such mockery MoveOn was, in a twisted sense, being somewhat truthful with this characterization.

But first, one must understand who constitutes the "us" to which they refer, namely the American left. From their perspective, the recent victories and successes by our heroic forces do indeed represent a "betrayal" of their anti-American hope and dreams.

To bolster this point, it is worthwhile to recall President Bush's May 1, 2003 landing on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln. The purpose of that intentionally flamboyant act was obviously to inspire American troops on the ship and throughout the military, while dispiriting the enemies of real America.

Sadly, the latter group included blindly partisan liberal hacks who, having already invested their political futures in the current Administration's failure in the terror war, saw the occasion of success and celebration by the President not first as an admonition to Islamic terrorists, but rather as a danger to their own self-serving political aspirations.

In another time, the carrier landing would have been universally hailed as a sure sign of America's military prowess and the inevitability of its victory over the enemy. But that was back before the American left and the Democrat Party redefined "patriotism" as cheering for the successes of those who hate the traditions and values that propelled this nation to greatness.

So it should surprise no one that Bin Laden's message echoed so many other aspects of the Democrat agenda. From the alarmism of "Global Warming" to the reordering of society's entire concept of right and wrong, the similarities of Bin Laden's words to those of the Democrat platform far outweigh any differences.

Bin Laden understands that the derisive words from Lantos and others to General Petraeus are merely the latest in a battery of anti-American blather that anymore represents the "soul" of the Democrat Party. Of course by the time Lantos and his kind realize that they are in no way immune to the danger posed to the rest of the country by their irresponsible and selfish actions, it may be too late to correct their errors.

With growing militancy, a belligerent Islamic culture is exerting its influence throughout the world, with the obvious intention of completely reordering society to fit its belief system. And with each passing day, it becomes an increasingly difficult task to avert such a fate. The best manner of confronting them is on an aggressive basis, according to U.S. terms.

If America is not united in its opposition to the onslaught of the Islamists, it is doomed as one people to suffer their ravages. It is atrocious that, either through unfathomable malice or sheer ignorance, the Democrat political machine is working in concert with the Islamists to this end.