Do Leftists Want Us to Lose in Iraq?

The short answer: YES

Those on the Left hate Bush SO much that they will take any opportunity to exploit anyone in order to advance their agenda.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is SO hungry for power that they are willing to undermine the administration at any cost.

The Dem strategy to regain power can be summed up in two words: Embarrass Bush.

Whether it's an attack on Tom DeLay or Karl Rove, whether it's prying into the adoption records of John Roberts' children, or whether it's the exploitation of Cindy Sheehan, the Dems' goal is to make Bush look bad.

It's an odd strategy really. In effect, the Dems are banking on winning over the American people by turning them against Bush and the conservative agenda. They know that they've been rejected in national election after election. So, they seek to demonize the Republicans in an effort to appear as the lesser of two evils.

Rather than offering something positive to Americans, they do nothing but tear down and obstruct. That's not a new political strategy. It's a very negative one, but it's nothing new.

What I find particularly disturbing about the Left's current tactics is their willingness to try to get at Bush by putting the brave men and women of our military at greater risk.

The Dems, the liberal media, and all the radical arms of the Left do not hesitate to dwell on Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and highlight isolated abuses, making it appear that such behavior by our military is the norm.

They are trying to win support by fanning anti-American flames in the Arab World.

The liberal media have been talking about Iraq being a quagmire since the first week of the war. Dems and RINOs have called the U.S. presence in Iraq an occupation. They echo Al Jazeera's belief that Iraq is another Vietnam.

There is no question that they consider us to be occupiers, not liberators.

Christopher Hitchens asks:

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

I would like those on the Left to provide answers to these legitimate questions.

"Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration?"

They act as if they do, since they seem to be utterly oblivious to the far-reaching repercussions of their actions.

Anything, ANYTHING, that hurts Bush is good.

Do they care that they are undermining the hope of democracy in Iraq? No.

Do they mind putting all of our troops in greater danger by pointing out the misbehavior of a few military members? No.

Do they want us to cut and run from Iraq? Yes.

Do they dishonor the sacrifice of the dead by suggesting we pull out now, not completing the mission? Yes.

Do they want us to lose in Iraq?

I have difficulty saying this; but based on all the reckless rhetoric from the Left and all the avenues they've gone down to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq, I can only conclude that they do.

It's a painful conclusion.