An Interesting Thought Experiment

David Limbaugh wonders how differently Democrats would act if they DIDN'T support the troops:

One is entitled to wonder how the prime movers in today's Democratic Party would behave differently if they were trying to dispirit our troops and embolden the enemy.

Early on in the Iraq war I watched in disbelief as Democrats, one by one, then group by group, with malice aforethought, fraudulently accused President Bush of something they knew to be false: that he deceived the nation about Iraqi WMD to start a war he had been predetermined to launch since before he was conceived because a) he wanted revenge against Saddam for his father, b) he wanted Iraq's oil for the United States, c) he wanted Iraq's oil for Dick Cheney or d) he is a neoconservative dogmatist who believes democracy is a panacea and preemptive wars to convert tyrannies to democracy are our new Manifest Destiny.



U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) holds a news conference on Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington April 16, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES) Yes, they accused our commander in chief of lying us into war -- thus savaging his reputation and that of the United States before the entire world -- all the while complaining that President Bush had damaged our reputation in the international community.

Just to make sure there was no misunderstanding as to their intent to destroy his (and the nation's) image, they remained at their megaphones to shriek, incessantly, that Mr. Bush hadn't given Saddam enough time and chances to comply with U.N. resolutions (though he'd violated umpteen of them). This sent an unmistakable signal to the world that it was President Bush that had been unreasonable and in the wrong on this war.

To further emphasize their message, Democrats branded Bush as a unilateralist, flagrantly ignoring that he had desperately tried to bring as many nations as he could into the coalition and did succeed in convincing a significant number. They also condemned him for initiating a preemptive war -- even though their best hope at the time, John Kerry, later acknowledged that preemptive war under certain circumstances had always been an acceptable strategy of the United States.

On into the war, Democrats couldn't bad mouth our progress often and loudly enough. For example, they proclaimed, quite gleefully, that the Iraqi people did not greet us as liberators, but occupiers, leaving no doubt they would rather have that dismal result if it meant discrediting their nemesis President Bush. At times they even downplayed the landmark Iraqi elections as insignificant and illusory.

If patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels and dissent is the highest form of patriotism, doesn't that mean dissenters are scoundrels?