There wasn’t much to start

In the morass of Eleanor Clift’s ramblings, an interesting quote appeared:A Republican on the Senate side predicted that the debate here at home would take a nastier turn as a backlash builds among the right. “The right is red hot in going after the traitors among us who are weakening our resolve to win the war.”

I have little but contempt for the “weakening resolve” argument. When a nation’s interests are clear and its survival is on the line, there is no question of resolve. It is only when the nation’s leadership decides to force a questionable war with largely abstract justifications that this becomes a potential issue.

Consider, for a moment, the half-hearted way war was waged in Vietnam, Somalia, and to a certain extent, in the Iraqi Occupation. The lack of resolve started at the top, and from the beginning. This is not the way that WWII was won, when whatever needed to be done and many things that didn’t were performed without hesitation or delay. To blame those who notice the increasingly bad performance of the administration and comment on it for a lack of resolve that has been apparent from the first evasion of the truth of the enemy is ridiculous.

This is not to say that some of the administration’s opponents are not anti-American traitors. But there’s certainly an element of the pot calling the kettle black, too, as no administration hoping to hand over sovereignty of anything to the United Nations can be considered fully innocent of anti-American treason itself.

In any event, there was probably more resolve among Americans for attacking Saudi Arabia or Iran after September 11th than there was for attacking Iraq. Iraq had a few ties to terrorism, but nowhere nearly as many as the two exporters of global jihad. Anyone who wants to point fingers at weakening resolve has no better target than the White House.