A Striking Contrast

President Bush just finished delivering the latest in a series of speeches responding to the increasingly shrill critics of the Iraq war. The President has been using a different tone of late--more conciliatory, more open about past mistakes--that seems to be making some headway in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of defeatism emanating from most of the Democratic party and national media.

The message of the speech was little different from what Bush has been saying for years, but the personable style of delivery is what really made it one of Bush's most effective war speeches. The President seemed assured, yet sober. It was a striking contrast to the hysterics frequently employed by Howard Dean and other Democrats, who often seem to think the war is of minor importance compared to trashing the president and undermining public morale. We need a serious opposition in this country, one that can debate Bush's speech and war strategy on the merits, and thoughtfully lay out an alternative view. Such a battle of ideas would be beneficial to both sides. Instead, we are given the likes of Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who deride the war as "unwinnable," and when asked what they would do differently, invariably reply with irrelevant and nonsensical condemnations of the war itself. Rather than doing something to contribute to victory, they seek to maximize partisan advantage. Say what you will, but Bush's mistakes in the conduct of the war have been committed in the pursuit of victory. The Democrats' sole contribution to the war, on the other hand, has been to undermine it since the day it began (indeed, even before it began). And then they have the audacity to say that Bush is the one who has lost all credibility on the war. It is enough to drive a man to unleash a Dean-like scream of frustration.

The historical magnitude of the last week's elections in Iraq cannot be overemphasized. After decades under the rule of one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in history, Iraq is now governed by a freely elected parliament. A recent poll shows that Iraqis are optimistic about the future; ironically, much more so than Americans. It is a telling testament to the power of modern media to shape public opinions that Americans, who are bombarded with daily reports of bad news from Iraq, are actually more pessimistic than Iraqis, who are literally being bombarded. Could it be that Iraqis have a more complete view of the situation, and recognize that there is more going on in the country than the one bombing on one street that the American news networks choose to focus on? The Democrats may blithely ignore the unprecedented changes going on in Iraq, but history, I believe, will not.