Failure is not an Option!

So speaks Cal Thomas today, in an article praising President Bush's speech Monday night for "thinking big." He then goes on to say, in short, "Hey support President Bush or else get blown up, you idiots." But why be short when I can fill up inches quoting him.

"I wonder if those who have switched from approval to disapproval of President Bush in the polls fully understand what is at stake in Iraq. Failure is not an option. If the United States fails to achieve its objectives, we might as well issue printed invitations for the terrorists to turn up the heat. They will surely gain new recruits and be emboldened to stage more outrageous attacks.

It is important for some of those nations that have carped and lobbed rhetorical missiles from the sidelines at U.S. policy in Iraq to participate in rebuilding that country. Terrorism is a threat to every nation, including the surrender monkeys who think they can buy off the killers through appeasement. No free nation is safe from them, and if they aren't coming after certain nations now, they will later unless they are stopped."

The first step to convincing someone to agree with you is reminding them how stupid they are to disagree with you in the first place. That always works. Once people realize how stupid you think they are, they will quickly inquire as to how they can change their opinions to match yours.

Cal Thomas uses this technique by suggesting that those who disapprove of President Bush don't understand the situation, and by suggesting that those nations who don't agree with President Bush are "surrender monkeys" and appeasers. Gosh I feel like agreeing with Mr. Thomas already. But let's look at his argument.

Interesting how Mr. Thomas and some liberal critics of the occupation of Iraq see things differently. Mr. Thomas assumes that al-Qaeda will have an easier time recruiting if we leave Iraq because they won't be afraid of us. I'm not sure how that works (why would suicide bombers be afraid of us anyway. Are they worried we might kill them?). And some liberal critics suggest that if we stop occupying Iraq and, you know, doing the bad things we are doing, that they will be less likely to focus on us. I'm not sure either is a viable option (preferring the plan of the next President of these United States, John Kerry).

His paragraph directed to other nations (by which, we assume he means France) is the same old game. It's called the force. It's an old magicians trick to get you to pick the item the magician wants you to. In this case, Thomas presents exactly two options for fighting Terrorists; complete devotion to President Bush and any plan he chooses to follow or capitulation to the terrorists. Those are your only two options France. And, one would assume, those are our only two options as citizens of the United States.

Of course we can look forward to this argument all summer long; a vote for Kerry is a vote for surrender. But in order for that argument to work, President Bush's conduct in the War on Terror has to be pretty unimpeachable. And, as I'm sure you've noticed, it's not. Even if you think invading Iraq was a good idea, it's clear that President Bush and his foreign policy staff failed to prepare properly for the war. It's clear that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to fight this war on the cheap, and so failed to plan for contingencies that were predicted before the war, and have since come to pass. So maybe President Bush isn't the only solution to the world terrorism problem.