After the dust settled in the remarkably successful Iraqi elections, the agenda of the American left and the American media, which are exactly the same, became abundantly clear. That agenda is to pit the entire country against George W. Bush, so that everything Bush accomplishes or makes Bush look good is denigrated and everything Bush fumbles or struggles with is seen as a political opportunity. This is the old Vietnam template which says America is the focus of evil in the world, but rarely has it been applied so directly to national security as it was last week. Rarely has national security been politicized in American history the way the American Democrat/media left is doing so now.

Exhibit A was the Iraqi elections. Did you for instance see any Democrats praising how well things went? That Sunni's turned out in droves to vote after boycotting previously? That Sunnis themselves might now turn on their own insurgency as a way of hastening democracy and seeing our troops begin to depart? American liberals could not very well condemn the successful elections. But that would be too obvious. So they focused on the invariable "continuing problems." What about the media? The first sentence of the AP Analysis on the front page of my morning paper went like this. " The heavy turnout for elections Thursday was a big step for Iraq's fledgling democracy, but momentum could falter if Iraq can't put together an inclusive government that attracts discontented Sunni Arabs." What do they call 70% turnout? The media template is "on to the next complaint," no matter what happens in Iraq. No celebration or recognition of the good and the hopeful.

Exhibit B was the charade of a meeting between Senator John McCain and President Bush, one that I'm sure McCain viewed as a meeting of equals. The media described the meeting over the "torture issue" as a defeat for Bush. It is nothing of the sort. This legislation is a sham that says to the world, "America doesn't torture. "When the situation arises, however, where torture is necessary, we are supposed to go ahead and do it and explain why afterward. This is nothing more than McCain attempting to show what terrorists will never admit, namely America's moral authority. At the same time, we are being dishonest about what we might have to do under extraordinary circumstances. In the American media/Democrat left, what is the important thing? To heck with national security. Defeat Bush.

I ask you: when did the American presidency become a political football in a time of war, a dispensable political commodity? FDR was so important that the American people refused to allow him to leave office, electing him four times. JFK was so important during the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold War that the media refused to report on his extra-curricular activities inside the White House. But now the goal is: Let's get Bush no matter what. Who cares about the war and weakening the country? Who cares about national security?

Speaking of national security, exhibit C is the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Presumably he has been appointed to investigate leaks. That's what he tells us. But what about leaks that endanger national security? Not leaks exposing desk job jockeys at the CIA, but leaks conducted by the CIA. What about Dana Priest and the Washington Post exposing US interrogation sites? What about Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission? These are the issues that have policy implications that could have and did endanger America. But what does Fitzgerald focus on? Getting the administration Watergate style. Getting resignations. It's all about politics.

How about exhibit D? The filibuster and non-extension of the Patriot Act. Why is this important? ? Because our Senators are giving you the bizarre message that "civil liberties" are more important to you than avoiding the next terrorist attack. Before disbanding, the 9/11 Commission told us that we will be attacked again. It is not a matter of if but when. Here's the question: how do you want your government to spend it's time between now and the next attack? Protecting libraries? Or getting the terrorists and killing them?

Please keep in mind this fact. After the next attack, who will be complaining the loudest that "we were not protected!" That's right. The same people who are assuring right now that we won't be, the American left. And how does the media explain the non-extension of the Patriot Act? A defeat for Bush.

The truth is: the political left has no idea what it takes to win wars, so they should never be trusted to fight them. Their understanding of history is warped and they are playing politics with national security, hoping to gain power from American weakness. It is about time we called them on it. Bush has no choice but to oppose them for the good of the country. But ultimately, the American people will decide whether the Democrat/media left gets away with it.

  John Pendleton