Divided we stand
By pennpatriot Posted in Archived — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[promoted by haystack because...well, just because...]
After watching the Sunday political talk shows this morning, I'm becoming increasingly concerned with the current state of our political system.
The Democratic Party's policy of constant criticism without the advancement of viable solutions should outrage every American. In my view it is already getting old to say the least. It is almost as if they are still campaigning. This is perhaps the best indication of their failure to lead. Democratic Congressional leaders, now three months into their landslide victory in the midterm elections, have still not come up with a viable plan for victory in Iraq. Then again what else have they accomplished?
Is this what the American people voted for last November?
More below the fold...
Democratic candidates during the past election promised a "new direction". Instead they have been stuck spinning their political wheels in political vindictiveness. It is no surprise that Democratic leaders have fallen short of their campaign promises.
Contrary to the poll results that all the talk shows like to highlight, I think a majority of Americans are still holding out hope for a victory in Iraq. Notice the polls never ask people if they still want to achieve victory in Iraq. Yes, the American people have been unhappy with the President's handling of the war in Iraq. But, I believe that the midterms results were a specific political message sent to President Bush. That message was hey Mr. President get your act together and start leading us to victory.
The real question the American people seem to be struggling with is whether or not our current political leaders can deliver a victory. I would like to see a poll question that asks the average American if he or she thinks the current leadership in Washington, including members of both parties, is strong enough or capable enough of achieving victory in Iraq.
The results I think would surprise you. The constant criticism and failures of both parties has caused a majority of the American People to loose faith in their leadership, our ability to achieve victory in the War On Terror, and perhaps in our political system all together.
Despite our desire for victory, the Democratic Congress continues to call for troop withdrawal. In my opinion this is not what the American people want. On the other hand, the American people don't want "stay the course" either. Which cost a number of Republican legislators their jobs in November. In fact leaders in both parties have failed to recognize this.
Instead of advancing real solutions, the Democratic Congress has spent the majority of the time continuing to attack President Bush. This may score them some political points with the MoveOn.Org crowd but it is not what the American people voted them into office for.
On the other hand Republicans in Congress have sadly scurried in fear of the Democratic propaganda machine.
The sad truth is that both parties are out of touch with the pulse of the American people. We have lost faith in our leaders. Lets all start praying for real leadership in Washington.
Thank you for posting this. I wonder how you managed to get inside my head and put into words a lot of the things that I have been thinking about lately.:>) I watched the Fox Wall Street Journal report last night, and there was interesting conversation between regular panelists and guest Mark Steyn. Mark said that Democrats in the US look at the Iraq conflict as the Republican's war, and some of the Senate Republicans join forces with some to call it Bush's war. The rest of the world sees America at war. The Congress can legislate a defeat, and the defeat is going to belong to America in the view of the rest of the world. I worry that the politicians are not smart enough to look at things in the long term. Both political parties have got to discover the difference between domestic policy discourse and foreign policy discourse. I am not sure that I see a present day Arthur Vandenberg in either party.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Piligrim, Thanks for your comments. My post came from my heart. After watching all the talk shows today I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. It just built up all morning and thank God for RedState which allows me an outlet to release my frustration.
The sad truth is our political system is full of characters that are quick to blame the other person and lack the forsight to hold themselves accountable.
Virtually all of the Democratic leadership voted for the use of force to invade Iraq. Now they make excuses. We were misled. The war was mismanaged. If I knew now what I knew then I wanted have voted for the use of force. This should be unacceptable.
The truth is the American people have not last faith in our military or the cause. They have lost faith in the ability of political leader to stand together.
The American people are not stupid. If we don't have the leadership in Washington we can never be victorious in any conflict.
Re: "We were misled. The war was mismanaged. ... This should be unacceptable."
Why should this be unacceptable? This is called accountability. The war was mismanaged in the extreme. And I don't mean "things don't always go as planned". This war could have been won decisively with most, if not all, objectives accomplished. The incompetence borders on criminal.
What exactly have the Democratic led Congress done to make things better in Iraq?
Good thing this isn't the Civil War or the Democrats would all have us whistling Dixie.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
and Gresham's Law is driving all the good politicians out of the House, Senate, and Gov's mansions across the country. Leadership is lacking on both sides. The Repubs may be doing the right thing, but they can't get through the cognitive dissonance the mainstream media flaks throw up to protect the Dems, who have infested the MSM with their proteges [Russert, Matthews, Brian Williams, et al started as Dem staffers in Congress or the WH] as well as ultra-left hacks.
Brilliant expositors of international threats like Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens are increasingly coming from overseas, as the silly academide inflicted on US Ivy undergrads rarely makes them interested in foreign affairs, except as proteges of Chomsky and Said. And conservative foreign policy columnists from the US find it hard to get a podium except for FoxNEWS---which can be preaching to the choir.
Fred Thompson sounds like he has a bit of the timing and wit of Ronald Reagan, but can he overcome the deluge of MSM agitprop from Russert/Matthews clones and their agitpreppie buddy, Brian Williams?
------
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
pennpat, the above is your "Money Quote".
I think a huge part of the problem is politicians are in a neverending,perpetual campaign mode.
I have always been an advocate of term limits on political office.
Americans who wish to serve the country in the House and the Senate should be restricted to two terms at most.
The Likes of a Ted Kennedy and a Robert Byrd should never be allowed to occur.
Politicians who are more concerned with winning the NEXT election cannot devote the time needed to actually doing the job they were elected to do.
In addition, Politicians who serve year after year after year in office begin to think that they are above us mere mortals who do the living and working and paying of the taxes that they spend so lavishly as if it weren't their money(which it isn't).
Long term politicians begin to think of themselves as the elites of the nation,which they are not. There are none who are above the rest, We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
But some are treated differently. The current Speaker of the House can travel to meet hostile foriegn leaders in direct violation of the law of the land. A politician can drive under the influence of prescription medication and crash his automobile and not be charged with DUI.
Politicians can use the power of the office to peddle influence to enrich themselves both while and after in office.
We have laws that allow only two terms of office for the President but congressmen and senators can remain in office for as long as the people keep voting them into office.
Many times because they have such a hold of power in their districts that none or few dare challenge them.
I've said here before on Redstate that I think all politicians are crooks.
In a manner of speaking they all are. They will lie and cheat to get elected. They will steal votes and allow the political machines that back them to commit voter fraud to get their candidate elected. They will promise voters whatever they believe the voter wants to hear to get their vote and seldom will they deliver on that promise.
Mostly they Cheat America.
They spend weeks and months of the peoples time arguing about meaningless resolutions that seek to undermine a nation at war.
They stuff a military spending bill with pork to buy votes to end a war in defeat that is nearly won on the field.
They lend aid and comfort to an ememy that is determined to end our way of life if left unchecked.
These men & women who I'm sure start out with virtue in their hearts to do good and help America,become drunk with their own self importance and power.
In the end all that matters to them is the Power.
They've had some and now they want more. They want to regulate every aspect of the peoples lives.
A politician that seeks power to lose a war is not a person I or any American should ever cast a vote for.
America is the greatest force for good that this old planet has ever witnessed, We can continue to be if only we can save her from self-serving politicians.
That job belongs to us,The Voters.
So few of us take the responsibility seriously.
Just look at what the 2006 election wrought.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
We crossed a line when our politicians began to care more about re-election than the country.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Re: "Democratic Congressional leaders, now three months into their landslide victory in the midterm elections, have still not come up with a viable plan for victory in Iraq."
You don't get it. A viable plan for victory in Iraq does not exist. Well, if one does exist, it would take a military or political genius to come up with it. Victory could have been ours had the mission not been bungled so badly. Why blame the Democrats for a catastrophe created by the Bush administration?
The single most compelling reason I heard not to initiate the Iraq adventure was that if things didn't go perfectly, we would end up in a quagmire with no way out. This is not hindsight; this was discussed before the invasion (if you were listening).
Strategically, it was a plan that if not executed perfectly, would leave the US painted into a corner. We are now in that corner and you fault the Democrats for not having a plan to get us out!
Devoman stating the obvious isn't leadership. Playing to peoples emotions isn't either.
Oh by the way many thought Hitler's Third Reich couldn't be defeated either.
The truth is the Democratic Party also played a major role in the Iraq war from the beginning. And they have failed to lead numerous times both in the majority and minority.
Pilgrim is right. This is our war. A war that a majority of the American people was in favor of. The Democrats are betting the house that America is going to accept defeat in Iraq.
When we start seeing our soldiers in retreat and radical islamic extremists dancing in the streets you guys are in for a big surprise.
"...many thought Hitler's Third Reich couldn't be defeated either." This is a rather pointless remark. First of all, who are the "many"? Secondly, it just doesn't give us any insight to argue that an earlier and completely different situation turned out well.
Yes the Dems played a role also - I never argued otherwise. We have already lost the battle in Iraq. But we have not already lost the war (the greater war). Time to pull back, regroup, and think of a better way to engage the enemy before all our strength is spent.
Your last sentence is an example of your second sentence. And who are "you guys"?
A fair assessment Devoman. I'm sure there is a lot we can agree on.
The American Communist Party opposed the war against the Third Reich from the beginning. They infiltrated much of our government and caused the cleanup of WWII in Germany to run on for another 10 years. The SS remained active well into the 50's. It was also the ACP that encouraged Roosevelt to negotiate with Stalin, a mistake in judgement that remains infamous.
The war in Iraq is a quagmire here in the US, much less so in Iraq. We continue to be divided by the devices of Marxist dialectics which have found a home in our Universities, our MSM and the Democrat party. Until we defeat the enemy in the living room we will never defeat the enemy at the door.
One of the reasons we can't achieve victory in Iraq is that no one even knows what victory means anymore.
This will end in one of the following two ways:
1. The surge will produce a dip in violence which will give Bush the opportunity to declare victory and he will initiate the withdrawal. I will give him credit if he takes this opportunity.
2. The Dems will win the presidency in 2008 and they will initiate the withdrawal. This will be worse than #1 because we won't even be able to declare victory.
Do you disagree? If you do, how do you think it will end?
Your right Devoman. There is not a clearly defined victory in Iraq. If you take the President's definition word by word. I think a clear victory would be a Democraticly elected government that has the ability to defend themselves. If this is the accepted terms of victory then Iraq is already half way there.
However, I think we have a to broad of view of what the insurgency really is. They are small pockets of tribal based rebellions. The Suni resistance also has the same characteristics. It would be like trying to defeat gang violence in Los Angeles. Something that would be impossible to accomplish within a year.
A victory in my view would be a viable Iraq military to defend themselves against attack and a viable police force that can continue to fight these tribal gangs in the long term. Maybe we should send LAPD over to Iraq and focus on a police strategy.
I actually think the insurgency is having some success. Radical shiite religious leaders have already left Iraq and retreated to Iran.
So I think, stability in Iraq will be achieved.
Foreign invaders from Al Qaeda, have occupied parts of Iraq, mostly in Sunni areas like Anbar. Many of the Sunni tribes have asked for our help in driving Al Qaeda out of Iraq. (They have also publicly asked bin Laden to withdraw his troops because the Iraqis don't want them.)
Al Qaeda is attempting to establish base camps in Iraq, like those they used in Afghanistan to train for and launch the 9/11 terror attack on the United States. Al Qaeda has said they want to hit the continental US again, hard. If they achieve the same set up that allowed 9/11, there is no reason to assume they won't try and possibly succeed in launching an attack like that.
I also don't see what a "war on terror" could mean if we allow Al Qaeda to rule portions of Iraq. If we don't fight them there, then why assume we would fight them anywhere?
Below is a report on Iraq which describes the "Anbar Awakening" in which Sunni Iraqis have turned against the foreign Al Qaeda invaders, and with the help of the US military, is working to drive them off Iraqi soil. As the report says, this would not have been possible without the presence of US troops. There have already been massive improvements, including thousands of Sunni police where there were none a few months ago. Much territory has been reclaimed from Al Qaeda.
For Americans, the war's most important events from August to December 2006 occurred in Baghdad. For al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamic extremist enemies in Iraq, equally important events in that same period occurred in Ramadi, the capital city of Anbar Province. Al Qaeda terrorism provoked many of Anbar's sheiks actively to cooperate with U.S. Forces, oppose all terrorists in the province, support the Iraqi Police and Army, form an effective city government and strengthen the provincial council. The sheiks called their movement "The Awakening." The hostility of the local population changed Ramadi from an al Qaeda stronghold into an area effectively contested by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
The presence of U.S. forces conducting counterinsurgency missions to secure the population made the local rejection of al Qaeda possible and effective. The leadership and example of the sheiks of Ramadi inspired other sheiks in neighboring cities to cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi forces. As a result of their efforts, especially in late 2006 and early 2007, al Qaeda no longer controlled Ramadi or Fallujah. By February 2007, U.S. and Iraqi forces were pushing the enemy from the other cities in the province. U.S. forces conducted deliberate counterinsurgency operations to secure the population from terrorism. Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, they cleared, controlled, and retained cities in the Euphrates River Valley. U.S. forces exploited opportunities created by the enemy and by the local population.
Because instead of offering a plan of their own to bring to the American people,Democrats have actively undermined and hindered the war effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan from almost day one.
Why? Because Democrats want to oversee the defeat and destruction of the United States and make it over into a socialist utopia.
Repeat after me Devoman: Republicans;Good for America
Democrats; Bad for America.
Say that over and over again until it is ingrained in your skull.
Democrats want America to lose in Iraq,Not win.
Winning would make President Bush look good,they just can't have that.
Now run along back to Kos where you belong.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
Is it that difficult to hear something other than the echo chamber? Don't you get tired of breathing your own fumes?
You're jumping like water on a hot skillet. Let me sum up: "There is no plan, but you'd need a genius to create one, except that we should have easily had one, but the Democrats don't need to provide one now [even though they voted for the existing plan*], and it's NOT THEIR FAULT, but things had to be perfect, or else we'd have the disaster that we'd have now [as compared to the military disasters of the Civil War, noncombat disasters of the Spanish-American War, and never mind the problems associated with World Wars I & II], and we told you all of this [in between the brutal Afghanistan winter, how this was a war for Oiiiillll/Haliburton/AIPAC and how we were all going to get gacked in Baghdad], but you didn't listen because YOU'RE REPUBLICANS AND WE HATES, HATES, HATES YOU!, and now that the Democrats are in control of the legislative branch it's just not fair that we have to come up with an alternative to the plan that we voted for in 2003 and endorsed when there was a Democrat in office."
Actually, I take it back; you do have a theme. It can be summed up as "Waaaaaa."
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Brackets are objective reality intruding. Pay them no mind.
Try to correspond in complete sentences please.
It's not that you don't have anything positive to add to the conversation, it's that the Left NEVER has anything positive to add to any discussion where national security is concerned.
Al-Qeada=BAD
SADDAM= BAD
Mookie Sadr=BAD
Iranian Mullahs=BAD
Appeasment=BAD
Surrender=BAD
Killing Islamic terrorist=GOOD
Liberal Left [redacted]'s = DUMB
Sometimes, War IS the answer.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
I'm a moderator for this blog whose only descent into a run-on sentence happened in - accurately - summing up your rather bad argument; you're a n00b commenter whose faction just got backstabbed by Carl Levin. You've just been given better things to do with your time than make snotty remarks; behave, or you'll have the opportunity to explore them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
it's Easter.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Three hours and 55 minutes as I post this.
I'll give it, over double the current account life time, or until fresh droppings.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
...he actually, technically made it 15 hours and 15 minutes - but only because of the 10-hour outage we had. Decide how that affects the over/under amongst yourselves. ;-)
It really doesn't occur to them that they are supposed to be part of the government in accord with the Constitution.
This isn't a trick question, I'd really like to know if anyone can, summed up in a couple of sentences, express the criteria for the day when the last front-line troops can leave Iraq?
Hopefully expressed in a measurable benchmark and not something vague such as "Whenever the Iraqi government is self-sufficient."
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
which are not to be confused with goal posts which can be moved at any time.
why is it that "Whenever the Iraqi government is self-sufficient."
is not a perfectly acceptable answer??
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
...it's a bit of a paradox to prove "self-sufficiency" when U.S. frontline troops are still propping up the army, no more than I'd call a kid still living at home to be self-sufficient.
Besides, it makes it a bit hard to debate without benchmarks. "The government is self-sufficient!" "No it isn't"! "Yes, it is!" Well, OK -- tell me what the criteria is?
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
O.K. how about this; When all the killing of Iraqi civilians by AQ and 'insurgents' stops. When the power and water is provided on a constant uninterrupted basis,when sabotage of oil and infrastructure stops,when stores,businesses,schools and hospitals and police stations are open and no longer come under attack,when the Iraqis hold the next national election and the reigns of government are turned over to the next Iraqi administration without gunfire erupting and when crime is at the same levels in Baghdad as it is in say....Detroit.
Then we'll know that Iraq is self-sufficient and we can call the Iraqi Freedom campaign complete.
Fair enough?
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
..and does at least give some attainable, concrete goals to work with. I'd be in favor of at least putting something like this as a stake in the ground, rather than either a) just saying we'll be there "until we aren't needed" or b) some arbitrary period of time.
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I wouldn't wish anyone having to live in conditions similar to Detroit.
Viable solutions? How about what the heck could we have done with $250 billion that was squandered on iraq?
Cure aids (im pretty darn sure this would have been possible).
Move toward energy independance.
Solidify de-salinization technology.
Contributed $250 billion toward the debt and saved 3000 american + hundreds of thousands other lives????
Given every school in the country hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Take your pick. Pre-emptive war is a childish strategy.
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Republicans_are_trigger_happy_gree...
Ta.
Moe
PS: I'd be more scornful, except that you aren't particularly worth it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Aids is preventable if you don't put your fishing worm in a diry pond.
If Brazil is Energy independent because they drill off shore and Canada is net exporter, then why are we still afraid of our environmentalists and why aren't energy independent, at least on the N. American continent?
Lets get rid of the automobile because that would save 7000 lives a year.
Parents involved in their children's education would save billions of $$$$ too.
No better solution to Al Quaeda than turning their lackeys into a bloody mists in their own neighborhood, $200 billion is small price to pay indeed for that honor.
Just remember, GWs tax cuts are the only ones ever conducted during a time of war and cut the current deficit in half from last year's estimates of $400 billion to actual $200 Billion
Even with the Katrina expenses too, thank God for GW and his Harvard MBA.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Cure Aids ? Just how would this have been possible ? Just how many molecular biologists are fielded in Iraq ? How many virologists ?
Move towards energy independence. Hmm been happening since carter with about as much result now as then. You might tell your congresscritters to let us drill in anwr and off the shelf.
Solidify Desal ? What more would you like, its pretty much as good as it can get.
The debt ? we are about to have a balanced budget. Not paying attention are you ?
Oh good and we would give schools this largess and expect what in return ? Perhaps buy the kiddies Ipods ?
History is full of counterexamples to your last point. But this isn't pre-emptive.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
OK so what you are saying is that the Commander In Chief's plan isn't specific enough. Its too easy to pull shut gun blasts from the comfort of wherever you are at the CIC. Where's the outrage about Sharia in the Twin Cities? Our own prisons are breeding grounds for wahhabi radicalism.
Investors Business Daily had an editorial about Mr Ellison refusing to pay parking tickets or taxes, is that true? And if true, has he paid up?
Its clear that it is not just a military solution, though, I'm to the right of Attila the Hun on this, in that I don't care if we are in Iraq for over a thousand years, Al Quaeda has claimed 4000 martyrs in what is their central front on against "Crusaders and Zionists" which would mean you too, in Iraq. So who the hell is paying the Democrats to say that Iraq is not the central front on terror?
Personally, I believe after four years at war, it is time for both Democrats and Republicans to stop pointing fingers at one another and realize that like it or not, this is America's war. Plenty can be said from both sides of the aisle, whether it be Bush's groupthink problem or the Democrats lack of organization or vision. However, I do believe if we stop seeing this war as a battle between two political parties and start seeing it as the American occupation and quagmire that it is, perhaps we can work together to produce some viable options for wrapping up this adventure. Let's begin right now.
Al-Maliki's government needs to be held accountable for both its failures and successes over the next few months. Carte blanche American presence in the country is not going to accomplish this. Can we perhaps all agree that definite (I hesitate to say) "benchmarks" should be legislated and carry harsh punishments if the Iraqi government does not follow through? The surge may very well produce increased security in the coming months, but if in this lull in violence does not breed any substantial actions by the Iraqi government, what is the point?
start seeing it as the American occupation and quagmire that it is, perhaps we can work together to produce some viable options for wrapping up this adventure. Let's begin right now.
Ah yes, the dreaded "Q" word. Haven't heard you Dems use that word in, oh, it must be 10 minutes. Oh, and the choice of the word "adventure." so very droll the way you dismiss this front in (that which must not be named) on terror.
Can we perhaps all agree that definite (I hesitate to say) "benchmarks" should be legislated and carry harsh punishments if the Iraqi government does not follow through?
Yes, the answer is legislation. You Dems need to legislate your hearts out! But what could we choose as a suitable punishment to the al-Maliki government? I know, let us threaten to send Speaker Pelosi to Baghdad to talk to him!
If Democrats think their current Congressional leaders is the answer to the problems in Iraq then they are making a serious mistake.
The overall point of my post is as follows.
If I had to walk down a dark hollow here in Claysburg Pennsylvania at one o'clock in the morning, I'm surely not going to choose President Bush, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi to back me up.
If we are in this together and want victory we need war leaders.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with these ones for another 20 months, a span of time that may the most important in this war so far. So what do we do between now and 11/08?
...while I realize that we probably have differing criteria for what constitutes good leadership here, I can readily agree that whatever it is, we don't have it right now.
[please delete the other misplaced comment...]
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
...while I realize that we probably have differing criteria for what constitutes good leadership here, I can readily agree that whatever it is, we don't have it right now.
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The Democrats are poised to win historic majorities in the House and Senate and most likely the White House in November. I disagree that people will change their minds between now and November 08. People are tired of the war. They will not support another 5 to 10 years of low grade simmering warfare. Surely you can see this. This feeling will not change just because we wish it so.
I also don't think its the fault of the MSM or even the Bush adminstration. Democracies just aren't built for long wars.
Good or bad, neither the Democrats or Republicans have the ability to win this war. A war leader will need more than just a good plan to win.
Truth is Life
People may be tired of simmering war, but I think they will tire more of Sharia law. There is no middle ground... there really is no negotiation - there is nothing to negotiate - only consession after consession on the part of the West.
I don't want to see it, but it very well may be another replay of the late 1930s... denial that we really have to fight to win. And who knows how crippled we will be before people realize what is upon them.
What is certain is that refusing to fight this war won't make it go away.
Its not even nov 07 yet.
Casualties in April in Iraq were 2 so far. 2 too many but 2 just the same. So I need to know what constitutes a win here ? Because, so far, the only thing thats been getting harder is defining winning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If the Democrats would support America, instead of the terrorists it would go a long way toward making the war much shorter. Since the Vietnam war, we've never seen the the Democrats support American winning. Why is it so important to the Democrats that any enemy against America, win?
When Americans offer support to any part of the enemy, it encourages all terrorists everywhere to believe, that if the terrorists just keep fighting, the Democrats will surrender, the Democrats will win for the terrorists. America must make it impossible for the terrorist to believe that they can win.
The way to do that for the Democrats to start fighting the foreign enemy instead of Pres Bush.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).