Deep down Mindy Lou realized that Billy Bob was the scum of the Earth. She knew her cheatin' husband hopped in his truck (which she had paid for) and took his love to town on every possible occasion. Over 12 years she had caught him in his lies a full 16 times. She'd caught him with her "friends." She'd caught him with her enemies. Still, Mindy Lou always gave Billy Bob just "one more chance."
"That lipstick on the collar and that flimsy nightie under the seat just isn't enough proof," she told her family.
Mindy Lou thought about drawing a line in the sand after Billy Bob slapped her around a few times. And yet, whether out of fear, desperation or confusion, she still refused to take action.
"That disease he gave me just isn't enough proof," she cried to the preacher, nursing her black eye and split lip. "And even if I did file for divorce he might get mad. There's no telling what he might do."
Such a scenario, sadly, is not all that uncommon in America. However, in this case the story is pure analogy. In case you didn't guess it, Billy Bob is Saddam Hussein and his fellow Muslim terrorists. Mindy Lou is the personification of the European hand-wringers and American liberals who protest our country's impending war with Iraq. Watching and listening to their lame responses to President Bush's articulate State of the Union address was enough to bring on nausea.
Do liberals truly not get it? Are they such pacifists, so soft, frightened and out of touch with common sense that they can't comprehend the definition of "imminent threat?" The time to take action is when you know your adversary is armed, dangerous and stalking you from the shadows. Waiting until he blows your head off, and puts a few rounds in your wife, son and daughter for good measure, is erring a bit far on the side of caution.
But that's the kind of "proof" upon which Democrats insist; they request 100%, incontrovertible evidence of the evil that confronts us. That such a demand is nothing but moral cowardice, a way to stall, deny and pass the buck, matters to them not a whit. The only time one receives such total validation is after an atrocity has already been committed and the perpetrator has signed his name. I would think a hole in the Pentagon, death in a Pennsylvania field, and the smoldering remnants of the Twin Towers would be enough.
"Oh...but that was the work of Usama bin Laden," they'll tell you, "That was Al Queada, not Iraq."
Excuse me while I sneer. The Middle East has always worked as a consolidated region when it comes to terrorist action against America or Israel. In fact, the only time the Arab world is not trying to kill each other is when they're trying to kill us. To believe otherwise is to ignore reality. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't fired that donkey and adopted an ostrich as their new symbol.
Ted Kennedy mumbles that he wants President Bush to give Congress "convincing evidence of an imminent threat before sending troops to war." Tom Daschle whines that "before we commit the first life, the first American soldier in Iraq, we need to have positive proof." Nancy Pelosi scowls that "Bush did not make a convincing case that the use of force is the only way to disarm Iraq, or that removing Saddam from power would guarantee that a new regime would not pursue the same policies."
I guess The Three Stooges were raiding the mini-bar when the President gave his speech. I distinctly heard him tell Congress that Saddam has yet to account for over 25,000 liters of anthrax, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents and several mobile biological weapons labs. I heard him say that The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Do Ted, Tom and Nancy believe the words of Saddam Hussein over that of President Bush and our own intelligence agencies? Do they put more trust in the claims of a Middle Eastern butcher than in our Commander and Chief? Apparently so, and I have no doubt that, should this country be subject to another heinous attack, they would be the first to try and pin blame on the President for not taking decisive action
Democrats scream that they need a "smoking gun," but I believe what they seek is a political football. They care far more about trying to make the President look bad - spreading doubt, rumor and innuendo, than they do the welfare of the nation. They couldn't care less about war or peace or making the world a better place. They simply want their folks in charge of Congress and the White House.
So they want a "smoking gun." That's pretty funny, especially since Democrats have sought to confiscate and destroy every gun they ever saw...smoking or otherwise.
When did Nancy Pelosi join the NRA?
If you liked this editorial by Ron Marr, you can see more of his work at the Trout Wrapper.
