Many cowardly liberal isolationists are demanding I apologize for accusing Ned Lamont of helping “Al Qaeda types” realize their “bet they can ultimately break the will of the American people” and ruin our ability to “stay in the fight and complete the task.”  I shan’t take that back nor my trenchant comment that the Democratic Party, by choosing this pacifist over veteran Senator Joseph Liebermann in the Connecticut primary, is “purging… one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago.”  This underscores the horrid Democratic conviction “that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this (Iraqi) conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won’t.”

Imagine the difficulties we and our friends in the Middle East would face today if not for President Bush’s bold decision to attack Iraq in 2003.  We have made that region and the world much more peaceful and reject the accusation by Lamont and his ilk that our democratic Jihad in Iraq actually weakened our war on terror by diluting our effort to crush Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden.  Even though bin Laden looms yet free and the Al-Qaeda-cozy Taliban are gaining strength in sparsely-patrolled Afghanistan, there hasn’t been another 9/11 and there won’t be if Republicans – and Democrats like Senator Liebermann – continue to lead the fight.  Our aggressiveness was again recently rewarded when authorities in Great Britain arrested more than twenty terrorists who’d planned to blow up many airliners in flight, slaughtering thousands of people.  These arrests would not have been possible if the Bush administration, of which I am the most powerful member, hadn’t killed roughly one hundred thousand Iraqis the last three years.  If the connection escapes you, it is because you are a liberal pansy unschooled in the necessity of eternal warfare.  Thank God I am here to tutor you.

Furthermore, I declare that since the London criminals are of Pakistani descent, our administration, along with English-speaking Brits, must consider attacking that lawless nation.  But that course is not certain.  After all, we opted not to invade Saudi Arabia, which was the national festering hole of all but four of the 9/11 killers.  It isn’t so important who we attack but that we attack someone.  Syria looks like a good target.  They’ve been receiving missiles from Iran and shuttling them down to Hezbollah in Lebanon where they’re being fired into northern Israel.  We’ll probably also have to hit Iran.  In fact, we’ll strike them before we deal with Syria.  Ned Lamont will certainly oppose this vital action, if in November he’s elected senator in Connecticut.  We probably won’t have to worry about that since the good people of that state will either choose independent candidate Liebermann or the Republican, who you know is automatically going to be ready to attack.  We can’t survive without that.

American attacks are terrible for terrorists and great for business.  Our economy is robust, jobs are plentiful, interest rates are low, houses are being built and bought, big cars are rolling out of factories, gas is still under four bucks a gallon, and freedom is on the march.  I do privately wonder, however, where we’re going to get the troops for Iran and Syria since, despite our indignant denials, we’ve always been pretty damn thin on the ground in Iraq.  I guess President Bush and I will have to volunteer for active duty.  That’ll spur millions of young avengers to do likewise.