The most urgent question after 9/11 was
when we'd be hit again, not
if. In over six-and-a-half years, much to the president's credit, we've been kept safe - as in zero attacks against our homeland. When Democrats try to tell us why we shouldn't applaud this obvious, major success for the American people, they reveal that their seething anger trumps the happiness they should feel. Is there any doubt that if one person had died in a terror attack since 9/11, the Democrats would have mercilessly taken Mr. Bush to task?
While Bush fights for America to be safer, the Democrats fight Bush.
Throughout the vast majority of time President Bush has been in office, the stock market has climbed to never-before-seen heights, unemployment has remained historically low, as have inflation and interest rates. What president wouldn't want those numbers? Yet, the New York Times didn't write a front-page article last week when a government report told us that 166,000 new jobs had been created.
But, they did write five front-page stories on the five days the stock market took larger than 100-point tumbles. Which again makes obvious that Democrats revel more in bad news if it makes the president look bad than in the good news that their fellow citizens, across the board, are doing better economically.
While Bush fights for the economic health of our people, the Democrats fight Bush.
We're in a difficult battle in Iraq. There is plenty of room for honest debate about the merits concerning the administrations actions post 9/11 in Iraq. But, when it's abundantly clear that the president's "surge" strategy has been stunningly effective - to the point of turning the war around in our favor - you would think the Democrats would hail that victory.
But, no! Because the "surge" could make the president look wise, and in Democrat circles, that's the ultimate no-no.
While the president fights to beat al-Qaeda and the spread of Islamofascism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats fight Bush.
I was a liberal for the first 41 years of my life, jettisoning the Democrat Party after I saw the visionless response to 9/11 by the left. The rooting against the president that is the Democrats' de facto policy (just ask Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman) in the face of the numerous victories he has given our country, makes me surer than ever that I made the right decision.
Read Comments from Huffington Post readers »
Thank you Mr. Swirsky. Your article is the first blog I have read on the Huffington website where I said to myself, "Wow, this is exactly how I feel." I am a life long liberal Democrat who can count on one hand the number of Republicans I have voted for and two of those were close friends. Having said that, I believe the Democrat's stance on Iraq has been shocking, sad, and shameful. I believe that what we are trying to do in Iraq is one of the most progressive foreign policy initiatives in the history of our nation. I have waited and waited for the leadership of the Democratic Party to raise their voices in moral outrage over the killing feilds of Saddam but all I hear is slience. I have waited and waited for the leadership of the Democrratic Party to raise their voices in moral outrage over the genocidal massmudering tactics of al-Qaeda but all I hear is slience. I have waited and waited for the leadership of the Democratic Party to voice their support for the defence of the new and fragile Constitutional Democracy that 12 million Iraqis voted for under the threat of death but all I hear is slience. When they do speak their only words are of retreat, surrender, and defeat. These people are not liberals or progressives. They are visionless cowardly shallow hyperpartisans who have abandoned their liberal humanitarianism for short term political gain and I say shame on them! As a lifelong liberal "former" Democrat I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with George W. Bush and support liberty, justice, and enlightenment for the Iraqi people and all the peoples of the world. VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A LIBERAL CAUSE THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD!