Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Dean Barnett :: Townhall.com Columnist
The final straw
by Dean Barnett
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


It must have been a fun week to be a leftist. The week began with news of significant carnage in Iraq. While many liberals harbor sympathy for put-upon Iraqis, many more relish any development that adds to their narrative that “Bush’s War” is a disaster. Next, the president gave his annual State of the Union address which the American public greeted with passionate indifference. As if that weren’t enough good news for the typical lefty, James Webb, a netroots darling, saw his rebuttal to the State of the Union hailed with hosannas by the mainstream media.

But sweetest of all had to be the fact that this week saw civil war break out in the Republican Party. Enraged by the notion that some Republican Senators were going to support a resolution of non-support for the troop surge into Baghdad, members of the conservative blogosphere took action.

Led by my blogging partner, Hugh Hewitt, conservatives put up an on-line petition that reads as follows:

“If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.”

After a mere 48 hours, The Pledge, as it has become known, attracted almost 20,000 signers.

SOME THINK THIS IS POLITICAL Hari-kari, or that at the very least it will be destructive to the Republican Party in ’08. Senators who appear likely to support the resolution and who are up for reelection in the next cycle include Susan Collins and Norm Coleman. Regardless of what actions either of these Senators takes (short of sending filthy text messages to former pages), it’s hard to imagine the National Republican Senatorial Committee not supporting their campaigns.

But, in fact, this was a good week for conservatives; it was the week conservatives finally fought back and began reclaiming their party. For the past six years, conservatives have withstood the numerous slights and insults of the Republicans in congress. Steel tariffs, profligate spending, betrayal on judges, grandstanding on Abu Ghraib – conservatives tolerated all these things because of the fear that the Democratic Party would be even worse, especially where the war was concerned.

But for conservatives who support the war effort and consider the struggle against Radical Islam an existential threat to America, there has been nothing worse than

Republicans supporting this resolution and doing Carl Levin’s and Ted Kennedy’s bidding. At the very least, this represents a new low.

Rightly or wrongly, we feel that Republicans who in the past have supported the war effort are voting now to register their disapproval only due to craven political calculations. Buttressing that sentiment is the fact that not a single Republican Senator has explained what good will come from a Senate resolution belittling a battle effort that’s already afoot.

Assuming just for the moment that Republican Senators who support the anti-surge resolution are prisoners of conscience who won’t be able to sleep at night unless they speak their minds regarding the surge, these Republican Senators of heightened conscience should note that supporters of The Pledge aren’t asking them to refrain from being true to themselves; we are, however, beseeching them to do so in a constructive manner. If a Republican Senator sincerely opposes the surge, he should express his opposition in a thoughtful manner rather than by supporting a feckless and reckless resolution that undermines the war effort. And since presumably they have reached their conclusion regarding the surge after careful analysis and deep reflection, they should also be so good as to share with us their ideas for moving forward in Iraq and in the wider struggle against Radical Islam.

FOR SIX YEARS, SERIOUS CONSERVATIVES have responded to every betrayal from a Lincoln Chafee or a Chuck Hagel with continued support for the organizations that enable them like the NRSC. This support in the wake of each and every disappointment said in effect, “Thank you, Senator. May I have another?” The cumulative result of this unconditional love has been Republican Senators concluding that their agenda mirrors those of their party’s activists – namely, that we all care about nothing more than the careers of our Congress critters.

On Thursday evening, Senator John Ensign, the head of the NRSC, appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. On the one hand, Ensign is an enviable position; Liddy Dole did such a wretched job of running the NRSC during the 2006 cycle, it’s almost unimaginable that Ensign won’t benefit from the inevitable comparisons between him and his predecessor. But on the other hand, Ensign is taking over the reins of the NRSC at a time when the chickens of six years of Republican Senatorial malfeasance are coming home to roost.

During his appearance on Hugh’s show, Senator Ensign warned Hugh and his listeners that litmus tests are a bad thing. With all due respect to Senator Ensign, he’s wrong regarding this particular litmus test.

The time has long since come when Republican voters should demand that their office-holders be serious about the war. The anti-surge resolution is a frivolous thing, a pathetic exercise in rear-end covering. While differences regarding the war tactics urged by the White House are fair game, nakedly playing politics with matters of life and death is not.

The sooner the Republican Party gets serious about the war, the better it will be for both the country and the party.

Obviously the Republican Senate caucus isn’t capable of taking the lead in showing such resolve. But perhaps Congressional Republicans will be able to follow the lead of their supporters, supporters who are very serious about becoming “former supporters” if the party continues on its current trajectory.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Dean Barnett blogs almost daily at HughHewitt.com. He has also been a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard's online edition, The Daily Standard. He can be reached for comment at soxblog@aol.com.

Be the first to read Dean Barnett's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Republicans WERE serious about the war
and the courts and the economy...but all that got shoved aside by the immigration issue.

I've said this for the last two years: you have every right to disagree with GW...you have every right to tell the people of your party when you think they are doing something wrong...

But you also have a responsibility to point out the things Bush and the Republican party is doing right.

Your failure to appreciate the great economy...the fabulous judges...the fact that America has not been attacked on their soil again...is what convinced the rest of America (the part that is NON-CONSERVATIVE, INDEPENDENT, MODERATE) to give the Libs a chance.

And so here we are...worrying about the BIG issues like getting the funding for our troops pulled, losing the war and going back to the appeasement policy that led to 9/11.

Are we done with the tantrum over illegal immigration and smaller government and a whole bunch of Conservative Utopian ideals that really can wait...are we ready to get back to being serious about the war?

Baseless
Wow, this article was just one fanatical rant after another. Attack anyone who is tried of following this president down the drain.

Bush Failed. It is that simple. We should have debated prior to the war, but this admin was more interested in attacking all experts who disagreed. They failed to plan. Hell, Rumsfeld used cost cutting measures for war- what is a larger example of NOT supporting the troops. They sidelined the state department for reconstruction, but Halliburton made a lot of money.

If the experts would have been listened too, we may have had success.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/

How long do you follow incompetence before you wake up?

Five years ago would have been good
[The sooner the Republican Party gets serious about the war, the better it will be for both the country and the party. ]

==========================================

How many do-overs do you want?

One of the best ideas in years
Mssrs Hewitt and Barnett are to be commended for conceiving and promoting this idea. The nation will be well served if the GOP presents itself forthrightly as the party of escalation in Iraq, with disciplined uniformity of policy. Maverick thinking does not make for a successful or effective party.

Nothing but Politics
This is about nothing but politics, and it makes me sick. IF it were a representationof serious views, it would not be non-binding.

Ideals
Unlike Dems and some who seem to have (R) branded on their foreheads, conservatives are people with ideals and convictions. Getting and keeping POWER for the sake of power is what has been wrong with the dems for so long. When the Repubs start joining them it is time to speak up.

The Big Game Begins
These Rep Senators have put themselves in somewhat of a hot-seat, with no return. It is my belief that noble men will do what they do, with no regard for kudos (or money for re-election for that matter). If these men wobble now, in the face of monies lost (assuming the numbers climb way above 20M)), then they are not statesmen but poll-watchers. If they remain firm in their stance against the President, then they do not serve their constituancy, I would think, and thus are not worthy of reelection. All of these Senators are "write-offs" as far as I am concerned.

God Speed.

Disappointing article.
I actually support the surge, if that is what the president thinks is necessary to salvage the calamity in Iraq. I don't think it will succeed, but Bush as commander-in-chief already has all the congressionial authorization he needs to send in more troops.

It is his call.

Where I have come to fundamentally disagree with this president is on his notion of utilizing our military as an instrument in a social/political experiment designed to see if Islam is compatible with democracy.

I don't believe it is. And even if it were, I strongly oppose looting our treasury and sacrificing our best young men and women on such an endeavor.

Our military should be utilized...our troop's lives placed in jeopardy...only when our national security is threatened, and not on a do-gooder mission to bring the blessings of liberty to the muslim world.

Barnett's quote that republicans in the past who supported the war(and are now expressing their disapproval)are only doing so for craven political reasons, is asinine.

It ignores deteriorating developments in the war: the emergence of the sunni-shia divide, the failure of the Iraqi government to deal with shia militias...to even cleanse its police force, and military, from their influence, the rising status and power of Iran in the region(and its influence on Iraq)as a result of our invasion.

The use of our military to create democracies in a region whose history and traditions are inimical to the concept, is not conservatism, but rather betrays it.

Not Republicans
Any Republican [sic] who opposes Bush's plan to send more bombs, guns and troops is not a Republican at all.

Don't they know that the only option for addressing foreign policy issues is either threats of violence or violence itself?

It is time
To admit that the people who voted for the Democrats in November to teach the Republicans a lesson will now have many years to realize that they have made possible the awful Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Congress, which is proceeding to do exactly what they had promised they would do when elected, first and foremost, to desert Iraq and make the U.S. ripe for further 9/11's. We sure showed those Republicans, didn't we? Even at their worst, the Republicans would never desert the troops in Iraq like the traitorous Democrats. It is a time to be ashamed to be an American to see so-called leaders willingly taking our country down.

do-gooder mission?
"Our military should be utilized...our troop's lives placed in jeopardy...only when our national security is threatened, and not on a do-gooder mission to bring the blessings of liberty to the muslim world."

What the * were my father, my uncle & various cousins of theirs used for in WWII by FDR? - to ensure that the language of the "perverted cheeze-eating surrender monkeys of France" would not be lost and to ensure that the communist pigs of the United Soviet Socialist Republic would not be defeated by their fellow fascists - Germany's National Socialist Society (aka Nazis).

Snowe/Collins Ain't Cutting It
Letter to http://www.mainewebreport.com Re: Tourism Director Stepping Down:

Conservative tourists should boycott Maine until the state can determine if it wants liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans in the US Senate. The current Snow/Collins arrangement in the US Senate just ain’t cutting it.

Obviously not a proponent of the liberal agenda, I believe, however, that conservatives can better strategize with true Democrats in power — much easier to count the votes.

Snowe and Collins, without a national mandate, and without apology, continually undercut what could have been a glorious, powerful, dare I say “compassionate” conservative agenda for the past six years and them some (remember the Senate sell-out to Bill Clinton).

What a waste — to have a Republican majority in the House, Senate, and White House, to see what great potential was squandered, because of the selfishness of a handful of spineless ne’er-do-wells.

And voters responded in November 2006: Throw the spineless party out. Elect people who believe in something — be it liberal or conservative. Witness the exit of Lincoln Chafee and other Republican fence riders.

Snowe and Collins, not content with contributing to one of the worst election disasters in the history of the Republican Party, are now prepared to undercut our military, their party, the presidential election of 2008, and, most importantly, the security of our nation; all because their desire to remain in power supersedes what could be a bright future for America and the rest of the world.

Hang in there conservatives. We are witnessing the last gasp of the Woodstock Generation. If we can hold tight for the next couple of years, usher out folks like Snowe and Collins, we will win in Iraq, the Middle East, and at home.
If we fail to fight the good fight, we can look forward to increased global terrorism, the death of entrepreneurial dreams, and ultimately the death of all things great and noble in our country.

I’m doing my small part by boycotting Maine. I’ll rejoin the state’s marketplace when wolves punch in as wolves, and sheep dogs resume their watch.

grandview45@yahoo.com
http://grandview.townhall.com

WTF
"It must have been a fun week to be a leftist. The week began with news of significant carnage in Iraq."


Disgusting. The idea that anti-war voters actually celebrate the spiraling into anarchy and the death of U.S. soldiers represent the lowest form of politicising the war.

You've ceased to be coherent and I won't be reading your hate speech anymore.

Another unrelated point: Lieberman votes against party lines and he's praised by Republicans for voting his heart. Hagel does the same thing and receives the 'traitor' smear. Pathetic.

The Doubters
First, those who sign up for the military know, from that moment on, they have automatically put their lives in danger, and their families know it. They're not wimps like some of those writing here. There's not one of you doubters who would be willing to put your life on the line for much of anything. Secondly, those who think this war can't be won are not thinking at all to a time beyond that bit of mental stupidity. The results of not winning this war are disasterous for freedom loving people the world over. Thirdly, anyone who feels that the Islamo Fascists are going to stop their bid to rule the world if we just pull out of the Middle East or "talk" nice to them is certifiably nuts. I suggest you make an honest effort to think like the enemy because until you do, you are unable to fathom exactly what they've set their sights on.

I will never leave this world knowing I had not fought with everything available to me, including my life if and when it comes to that, to give my grandchildren a chance for the future as our forefathers gave to us. It isn't a matter of debate or dissent any longer. We must win despite the mistakes made in every war ever fought. If you doubters think you'll come out on top, think again because you won't, not this time.

My fax to
Hagel and others........

January 25, 2007

Senator Hagel,

You said the following in opposition to President Bush's troops increase:

“I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?” Mr. Hagel said, his voice booming. “If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.”

If you are not a shoe salesman Senator, then introduce a “binding resolution” to cut off the funds for the Iraq war and do it now.

Your rhetoric in the safe confines of the United States Senate mean nothing unless you exercise courage of words and take action. Either put up or shut up.

If you don't, you are branded as a hypocrite, a coward, and worse, a traitor.




Hey Knuckleheads
The point isn't whether he votes against his party or not. The point is whether he votes on what is right for the country. In this case we have some RINOs who decided to vote against the country by siding with the Democrats whose only concern is hurting Bush at all costs. Lieberman gets kudos for voting whats right on the war and he gets razzies for voting socialist/communist on everything else. As far as Nixon is concerned, he was the biggest Democrat with an (R) after his name that ever lived. Go back and look at some of the things he supported and got done on his watch. You guys should have loved Nixon.

I Will Stand Up For Our Troops

If half the pro war bloggers
Would complete basic training, bring their own guns and ammo, and pay their own plane fare to go to Iraq and provide support for U.S. troops in house to house searches, we'd have the insurgents on their knees.

This is a serious proposal.

Blogging or lobbying in support of the war isn't going to cut it. We'll never win without more troops or a draft, our volunteer army is just too small.

For all the rhetoric about how we need to send more troops, I never hear anything about the more vital problem - how we're going to increase the size of our armed forces.

To Desu
There wouldn't be any problem increasing it. All we need to do is get congress to authorize increasing it back to where it was before Klinton and the Demo congress decreased it for the so-called peace dividend. As far as going to Iraq. If all you so-called anti-war people would go over and protest against the insurgents, the Syrians, and the Iranians as much as you protest against the U.S. then you would be true anti-war protestors and not just anti-U.S. Beside that, most of us who are commenting at TH are veterans and accoding to your demo politicians, that makes us qualified to comment on it. Are you a veteran and qualified to comment?

desu - When the leftists
quit celebrating any perceived US setback, as is dutifully spun by the sycophants in the information ministry of the Democratic party, we will quit referring to you as anti-American. In the meantime...........it is what it is.

When you criticize, you proclaim that you are being patriotic, when we call you out on your seditious behaviour, you are quick to charge that we are practicing "hate" speech in your feeble attempts to defend the indefensible.

anti-socialist
We did not go to war with Japan and Germany to install democracies, but rather to destroy their nations.

If you think the two missions(today's Iraq and Germany/Japan of WW2)are the same, then you would have to agree that the use of force in the two missions would be similar.

We firebombed Tokyo, Dresden, reducing them to rubble. We used atomic weapons on Japanese cities.

On Iraq, we dare not even return fire upon a mosque from which terrorists are targeting our troops, out of fear of enraging the native population.

The two missions have nothing in common.

You cannot wage a politically correct war, or engage in "dogooder" missions.

I stand by my post.


I'm just asking
For war supporters to volunteer, without a draft.

As far as most TH posters being veterans, I have no way to prove that and in any event it resembles the vague 'most soldiers vote Republican' meme.

You all complain liberals don't propose any solutions, so I proposed one. Brave young Americans need to volunteer to actually put themselves in harm's way. Blogging about the war or signing online petitions is not constructive - though it allows you to congratulate yourselves on how much more patriotic you are than the rest of us.

In a democracy, the people decide who goes to war. The fact that Americans haven't joined up voluntarily en masse to fight this war or called for a draft is prima facie evidence that they don't believe the war is worth fighting. So it falls on war supporters to set an example.

Finally, the idea that Democrats are celebrating dead troops is hate speech. Maybe you've spent so much time in your conservative bubble you can't recognize this.

pathetic
i think all you know-it-alls need to get on a plane and come over here to afghanistan and see for yourself.
or go to iraq. it is the same enemy.
until you have actually been here, YOU HAVE NOT EARNED THE RIGHT TO EVEN COMMENT, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME OR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OVER HERE.
you don't have to agree with it, but if you don't have anything positive to say, SHUT THE HELL UP.
you would rather destroy this country than admit you don't really have any idea what your talking about.
you have plenty of critcism, but no ideas.
i cannot comprehend how someone can get such perverse delight from the suffering and misfortune of others.


Politics
It seems to me that democrats and republicans should remember the victory of Joe Lieberman running as an independant. He won because he supported actions that are required to protect America and American citizens. People are beginning to vote for their country rather than their party- and that is encouraging.

Strategy for winning
The Hewitt pledge may lead to larger Republican losses in 2008. Many popular Republican representatives lost in 2006 because voters associated them with unpopular national Republican themes (the war in Iraq, corruption, privatizing social security, ...). Democrats argued that any vote for any Republican candidate was a vote for Delay, Hassert, Bush, Frist, etc. That's why Chafee was replaced by a Democrat.

This pledge plays into Democrats' hands by validating this claim.

Challenge to certain conservatives (you know who you are): Find a post, an opinion piece, anything from a liberal expressing the hope that American troops will be killed in Iraq or that harm will come to Iraqis. (Actually, that wish comes from TH conservatives all the time.)

Two points
First, there is a must-read article by Diane West today linked at Powerline which clearly articulates the root of American doubt about the surge (Are we going to really fight this time or are we too nice?). She also makes it clear why these non-binding resolutions are counter-productive hypocracy which dovetails right into Dean's article. I am sure that the commenters on this site mean what they say but it we would all be more persuasive if we could stop calling each other names and be able to separate loyalty to specific principles and ideals from loyalty to party and/or labels. I think we have everything we need in these two articles to formulate a final opinion.

Dean:
"SOME THINK THIS IS POLITICAL Hari-kari, or that at the very least it will be destructive to the Republican Party in ’08."

I don't think this is suicide, I KNOW it is. The right wing is following Bush off a cliff and will pay for it in 2008.
Gene Touchet: I agree completely. We need to steer the Republican party back to true conservatism, not the faux brand our President is pushing.

desu - I did volunteer- 44 years ago
The country called and said they needed my help and I went. At 19 years old, I didn't feel I was smart enough to judge the validity of the request. I just knew that my country was asking for help and the way I was raised, you simply responded to that call. I still believe that, in spite of the Anti-American left, we accomplished our goal in Viet Nam which was to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. That anti-war, peace at any price, cadre of cowards in the US was responsible for more deaths in SE Asia than was the American and Viet Nam (North and South)miltarys combined. History does repeat itself, doesn't it.

Today, if the country would accept a 62 year old geezer with a bad heart, I would be there in a New York minute.

I strongly suggest that you study our constitution. First of all, we are NOT a Democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Secondly, the people are NOT the decision makers regarding the decision to go to war. As a matter of fact, national security is really the only constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal government.

As far as the young people volunteering to defend the country, I believe the leftist indoctrinations occurring in our public schools and in society in general have pretty much erased any spirit of patriotism and love of country from the majority of our youth.

You "peace at any price", appeasement monkeys might want to stop and consider just who is going to defend the country for you.

My Candidate
Im looking for a pol who wants to be the president. Im looking for a man (OR WOMAN) who will look into the camera and say " if I commit American troops to a fight, we are coming to destroy you . We are not coming to win your hearts and minds, we will deal with that after you fall on your knees to surrender and beg us to stop killing your forces. I am looking for someone who, after all discussion of opposing views on policy are over in the State Dept, demands that the State dept speak with the voice of the President. Those who refuse to follow will be reassigned (since apparently you cant fire state dept employees) to offices with a chair, a desk and no phone and no budget. Is this too much to ask?

Gregdn
"The right wing is following Bush off a cliff and will pay for it in 2008"?

No one is following Bush anywhere and who is the "right wing"? In case you haven't noticed, conservatives are asserted themselves on 11/7 by electing Blue Dog Democrats and dumping RINOs. We are witnessing the reestablishment of the Reagan majority which, unfortunately, requires more Democrats since the GOP has no testicles. Conservatives were most effective under Reagan with a Dem Congress and under post-1994 Clinton with a GOP Congress. It's the end result that matters, not who is in office.

Gregdn
"The right wing is following Bush off a cliff and will pay for it in 2008"?

No one is following Bush anywhere and who is the "right wing"? In case you haven't noticed, conservatives are asserted themselves on 11/7 by electing Blue Dog Democrats and dumping RINOs. We are witnessing the reestablishment of the Reagan majority which, unfortunately, requires more Democrats since the GOP has no testicles. Conservatives were most effective under Reagan with a Dem Congress and under post-1994 Clinton with a GOP Congress. It's the end result that matters, not who is in office.

Serves under Gen Odom
and I wasn't impressed then and I am not now. He is an intelligent man, but so was McClellan, who was fired by Lincoln and then ran against him. For those of you not familiar with McClellan, he was a great organizer and fairly good planner, but when it came to operations he was timid and lacked a warrior's mentality - the Union lost to armies that were smaller and weren't nearly as well equipped. Odom takes a very "McClellan" stance in his writing and basically says because we are recieving some casualties and he doesn't think the Iraq government can survive, we should withraw now. He is having a "Mogadishu" moment in his retirement - withdrawing from there convinced Al Qaeda that we did not have the stomach for a fight and I feel that was one of the main reasons that Bin Laden felt he could attack the US without fear of a full reprisal. While we are having setbacks in Iraq, we are winning, the Government is in place, elections have taken place. Choose any metric you would like and I will show you that we are far exceeding the successes we had in any previous war. We have yet to lose a battle, our casualty rate is stunningly low and falling. The surge will result in more casualties in the short term but more stability in the long term - we must be willing to "pay any price" in the pursuit of Liberty - and democracy is possible in the Middle East - it is racist to think otherwise. We need to show resolve now more than ever - if we are together on this, the opposition will lose heart and will subside. As long as Senators are passing resolutions denouncing our policies, the insurgents have hope.

to desu
i volunteered to come over here. alot of my friends volunteered to come over here, alot of them volunteered to come back. i've been here 27 months straight. not because i was forced to.
thousands of serviceman renlist while they are here. not because they are forced to, because it is the right thing to do.
i'm a civilian who works for the army as a helicopter mechanic. i'm also a Navy veteran.
the bottom line is these people really need our help.
it's not about oil, it's not about politics, it's about people who are far less fortunate than any american can ever imagine.
i don't care how witty or hateful you and liberalgoodman are, you can hate your president all you want, i want to know what you have done to repay the extreme priviledge of being born in the U.S.

Why did my last comment post twice?
And why was I dumped out of the site after I posted it? Don't you guys like me anymore?

The Pledge
24 thousand+ wallets are slamming shut on Republicans looking for something less than victory in the global war on Islamic terror.

Those Republicans can seek that result in their re-election campaign - with my blessing, and fond good-riddance.

Odom Kills Conservative Pro-War Fools
Hugh, Dean, and the rest of you pro-war idiots need to read General Odom's presentation of 1/17/07 and memorize it!

I captured the highlights at my blog if you don't have the courage to read the entire blistering thing.

Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net

Donate to the RNC?

.....Dean ...

.....After GW campaigned for the re-election of Arlen Specter (which cost Rick Santorum his seat when he fell on his sword like a good soldier and went along with the President)* I wrote to Ken Mehlman and protested supporting RINOS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES as political suicide ...when the RNC continued on this path and campaigned for Lincoln Chaffee I decided that the party had sold out and that the RNC would never see another dime of my money .....COLOSSUS

.....* When Santorum campaigned for Specter he lost the votes of all the Toomey supporters which cost him the election and cost the Republicans control of the Senate.

Pasadena Phil:
You might have a point about the 'blue dog' dems, but I'll have to see them in action before I believe it.

Odom says "cut&run"
Gen. Odom states, "a rapid withdrawal is essential"..."it will leave a terrible aftermath"..."a delayed withdrawal will only make it worse". He wants to return to the days of Middle East regional stability orchestrated by Jimmy Carter!! Perhaps, even though Gen. Odom is a General we should reject his counsel. Dont know of Odom's background/service, etc.. I thank him for his service and am enormously gratified that he is now retired.

Our President/Commander-in-Cief asks us to"Find our resolve". We are engaged in war brought on by the Radical Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the US and around the globe. As a former Sec. of Defense said,(what was his name?) "It is going to be a long and difficult slog." President Bush and our military are waging a courageous and effective campaign in this global war. Fortunately we have not been attacked here since 9/11. Watch your back! Count up the times the Radical Islamists committed acts of war against the US during the 90s and because of the feckless response of Pres. Clinton 9/11 resulted.

Gen. Petraeus said the Senate proclaiming his mission will fail(that is the reason they are using the words "disapprove", if they thought it would succeed would they still "disapprove"?)will embolden the enemy. The Sen. Comm. within hours did just that. They voted for failure in Iraq. Unbelievable!

Congress and the American people have to fully engage in this global war.


Gregdn
Agreed. The proof is in what they do, not in what they say. That is the problem with politicians. It's like herding cats.

huh
I just posted this long response but it didn't appear, will try to recreate it later.

Republicans Must Resist The Ostrich Dem'
There is a war in Iraq and other parts of Asia for land and the rights to build America targeting terrorist camps. We know that. 9-ll was just a "tip of the iceburg". The Dem's led by Pelosi and gang want to shove their heads in the sand like ostriches, pretend the threat does not exist and walk away. To them, its all about what feels good today. If we leave our mission without out a stable democracy in Iraq, certainly we will probably be safe, for now. But, in time, these terrorists, emboldened with camps and feedom to grow, will come for our children. We know that the igredients of a place to plan without law and a simple handfull of box-cutters in the hands of hate-filled agents can make for horrifying weapons of mass destruction on our soil. For the Democrats, that's a problem of tomorrow. Just like children, what's important to Democrats is what feels good, today. Someone has to take the grown-up's role, as has President Bush, and stay the course and finish the mission. That way, the Democrats can continue, as children are apt to do, playing at politics while the Repubicans do the hard work of politics - making all of us safe, including our children.

a mercenary posing as a patriot
Gee moonie, would you be so patriotic if you weren't paid the premium to be in a war zone? The military goes to war because it is ordered. You're there because you paid enough? Wow, I am soooo impressed.

jeffry
conservatives and the president are not "pro war"
we are just anti capitulation to evil.
we believe in standing up for what we think is right, instead of trying to win a popularity contest.
quit the play on words.
i don't think even you liberals can deny saddam and al qaeda have commited evil acts.
during viet nam you called american servicemen baby killers, but you call killing babies in abortion clinics "freedom of choice"
well, i have freedom of choice as well.
i choose to fight those who have no problem with killing women and children. and i don't need your permission.
we gave the president permission to use the military as he sees fit when we elected him.
and no matter how you spin it, we did elect him. twice.
congress is not the commander in chief of the military. the president is.
if your not going to support your country, why should your country support you?

Pasadena Phil
TH has been acting strange for two days.
I even get mixed up colored text.
People have posted on one article and their post gone to another. I had one post just evaporate.
Cleaning cookies out of your browser often helps.

Boomer
"I strongly suggest that you study our constitution. First of all, we are NOT a Democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Secondly, the people are NOT the decision makers regarding the decision to go to war."

What do you think Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution means when it says Congress has the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Ironic how conservatives beat the judicial activism drum when it's obvious this administration thinks the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

"As far as the young people volunteering to defend the country, I believe the leftist indoctrinations occurring in our public schools and in society in general have pretty much erased any spirit of patriotism and love of country from the majority of our youth."

It's all a big conspiracy to you isn't it? A big conspiracy coordinated by the liberal media, liberal universities, planned by secret meetings between George Soros, Bill Gates, etc. to brainwash our youth into voting Democrat. This is tinfoil hat stuff. Because anyone who disagrees with you must have been brainwashed, right?

You should be proud of your military service but that doesn't give you the right to call those who disagree with you on an unpopular war traitors or anti-American.

Moondoggy, you should also be proud you volunteered to serve. But at this point lots of troops (many who are National Guard who signed up for a weekend every two months and never intended to make this their full time job) are on their third or fourth deployment, want to go home and don't want their children to grow up without them.

http://www.teambio.org/2006/12/us-soldiers-lead-iraqi-children-in-chant-f*ck-iraq/

(replace the asterisk with the correct letter)

Do you think the soldiers in this video are grateful that TH is blogging in support of longer tours of duty so they have more time to "get the job done?" They sound fed up to me.

Donaldd forgets our congress is
responsible for appropriations and takes the responsibility for the budget - President recommends a budget, then Congress puts in all their pork - if Reagan had not rebuilt the military after Carter nearly broke it, we would have had no way to respond to the invasion of Kuwait - a big what if would be what would our deficit be if Iraq controlled all the major oil fields in the middle east?
Carter presided over the worst economy since the Depression and during and since Reagan we had a booming economy. If all three branches are Democrats, we are going to be in a world of hurt - anyone remember when that last happened? Do you remember paying auto loans over 20%? I do.

mr. moondoggy is to be thanked
because he has sacrificed for the "good" of our country and the "good" of the people of Iraq who I would say by the number of PURPLE fingers deserve our help. I don't believe for one minute the lib's and the mutinous RINOS care about our servicemens deaths, but they just want power to shut down the president and the mission, for what reason , you tell me?

Read the Constitution
I guess that they don't teach about the Constitution in California, Phil? You had Democrats in landslide numbers in the House, WHICH IS WHERE ALL SPENDING BILLS MUST ORIGINATE! I also remember a model Democrat named Tip O'Neil who used to announce that "the Reagan budget is dead on arrival". I believe that this was done all 8 years in which Reagan proposed budget. But somehow, those clever Republicans outsmarted the poor boobish Democrats and got their budget adopted.

But what makes Pasadena Phil think that Reagan was a big spender? His growth was about 2.5% per year after inflation. It was Carter's inflation that wrecked the country, not Reagan's tax increases or spending.

Not War

.....jerabaub and jmag ...you are correct ...what is happening in Iraq is not war ...

.....the American Military knows how to win wars ....what they suck at is winning "hearts and minds" .....COLOSSUS

deserves to be said twice
a mercenary posing as a patriot
Gee moonie, would you be so patriotic if you weren't paid the premium to be in a war zone? The military goes to war because it is ordered. You're there because you paid enough? Wow, I am soooo impressed.

traitors posing as patriots
your hatred only impresses yourself

patriotism is the last refuge
Don't try to elevate your status on the backs of the military. Why don't you enlist and you can then be a true patriot?

Jeffrey - No One Is For War
Jeffrey, in your note, you address all who are for the war in Iraq. Anecdotally, there may be a few here or there, but, I doubt anyone in this conversation is for war. Many of us think Iraq, if left alone, without democratic law will foster American hating terrorist camps and come to our shores with a vengeance. We have noted how easily that can happen. We can not let that happen -- our future depends on it. Many of us feel that our future is worth fighting for. If being pro-war is having something worth fighting for, what does that say about those that are against war?

The Historian
Where did you get that from anything I said? If you need a strawman, pick on someone else. The trend has been steadily pro-conservative since Reagan won in 1980. You can cherry-pick your points all you want but progress is not a straight line nor is it perfect. The reality is that legislatures, Dem and GOP, want to spend money and lots of it. Our job is to "bring the pain" to those who abandon the principles they were elected on. We have to dominate the agenda. It is much more effective to focus on specific issues and specific candidates than to obsess about party loyalty. They are all self-righteous egomaniacal whores who only want to be re-elected. We need to keep riding them out of town on rails. None of them are indispensable.

desu
desu writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 8:26 AM
WTF
"It must have been a fun week to be a leftist. The week began with news of significant carnage in Iraq."


Disgusting. The idea that anti-war voters actually celebrate the spiraling into anarchy and the death of U.S. soldiers represent the lowest form of politicising the war.

You've ceased to be coherent and I won't be reading your hate speech anymore.

Another unrelated point: Lieberman votes against party lines and he's praised by Republicans for voting his heart. Hagel does the same thing and receives the 'traitor' smear. Pathetic.
=============================

I agree, that is called a lack of principles. Support your party at all cost, regardless of what is right for the Country.

Vic
Vic writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 8:43 AM
Hey Knuckleheads
The point isn't whether he votes against his party or not. The point is whether he votes on what is right for the country. In this case we have some RINOs who decided to vote against the country by siding with the Democrats whose only concern is hurting Bush at all costs. Lieberman gets kudos for voting whats right on the war and he gets razzies for voting socialist/communist on everything else. As far as Nixon is concerned, he was the biggest Democrat with an (R) after his name that ever lived. Go back and look at some of the things he supported and got done on his watch. You guys should have loved Nixon.

==============================

This sounds like the goose step to me. Twisted logic- you have to be "this" way or your against the country..haha..


Vic, your fanaticism has been showing lately. The first time I saw you on here, I thought you were semi reasonable. Lately, all I see is this crap. You make no sense.

The Peaceful 90s (d'oh)
"America wasn't attacked by Islamic factions for 8 years and 8 months under Clinton"

Do embassies count? Or the WTC, attacked in 93? Or the millenium bomb plot? Or the Cole? Other than that, yes, no Islamic terrorism although I suppose there may have been a few ATF Muslims at Waco.

What planet does the reality based community reside on?

PS Osama Bin Laden went from slingshots to the planning for 9/11 on Clinton's watch. Clinton AND Bush failed, as well as the populace as the 90s was one big fat, dumb and happy ride even as the signs that a 9/11 was on the horizon grew. But Clinton was our leader and he fiddled while Osama plotted.

Gene Touchet
Gene Touchet writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 8:45 AM
Yes
1960-JFK
1964-Goldwater
1968-Richard Nixon
Those are my first presidential votes.

Then the Republican Party began to change from fiscal conservatism to pandering to the fringes of the right.

A return to something similar to the mid-20th century Republican Party would be a blessing for the country.
=================================
I would add Reagan to the list of good presidents. The fringe was there, but they were not part of his core admin. The Reaganites were against this war and wrote a letter prior to it stating their objections. Hell, Nancy even sent her son to voice opposition.

But the fringe elements of this Admin were the Bushites. They started under Nixon, and slowly gained strength along the way. Now they are in power. They have destroyed the conservative movement.

Reagan was the last good republican president. And the Bushites, undermined Reagan’s policies in the Middle East with Iran Contra.

This is Reagan’s policy in the Middle East:

Inverse Engagement: Lessons from US-Iraq Relations, 1982-1990

http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html

Iran Contra- arming the Iranians in a war against Iraq, when Reagan was supporting Iraq prevented success and brought us to the problems we are dealing with today.

Mike...your comments.
"The surge will result in more casualties in the short term but more stability in the long term - we must be willing to "pay any price" in the pursuit of Liberty - and democracy is possible in the Middle East - it is racist to think otherwise".

Given your breathtakingly reckless and aggressive advocacy of sacrificing our finest young men and women in battle for democracy, I submit you are the racist if you don't advocate committing our forces in warfare to bring the blessings of democracy to subsaharan Africa.

Certainly black-skinned Africans, living in the two dozen nations in Africa where oppression reigns, are just as deserving of the blessings of liberty as are the folks in Iraq and the mideast.

I would not want to think you discriminate against black Africans.

Let our troops bleed, and die, to free black Africans! Let us exhaust our treasury in this quest!

Why stop there? The whole world awaits our sacrifice.

After all, it is for a noble cause.

Cough.

cowards posing as patriots
your hatred is mis placed



Huh?
jerabaub - I think you're racist because you want us, apparently, to bring democracy to Africa but you don't care about those trapped in North Korea. Why do you hate North Koreans? After all, it is for a noble cause.

Final Straw
The final straw was the revelation of the totalization treaty with Mexico. This grand experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people is being usurped by government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. We will all become workers, documented or undocumented.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.

no hatred here
I just hold your sense of patriotism in contempt.

The Left:
“Let the good times roll”

It's about time conservatives woke up
We have the government we voted for, and therefore the government we deserve. The question is why did we vote for this terrible government?

"This support in the wake of each and every disappointment said in effect, “Thank you, Senator. May I have another?” The cumulative result of this unconditional love has been Republican Senators concluding that their agenda mirrors those of their party’s activists – namely, that we all care about nothing more than the careers of our Congress critters."

If you keep rewarding a dog when he attacks you, he'll keep attacking you. You have to punish him to make him stop. What is it about the two parties that makes people support them even when the parties are kicking Americans in the teeth?

Did the NRA practically end the federal gun control hysteria by supporting the people trying to ban guns? No. They punished them by kicking them out of office. It's about time Americans did the same.

The two parties have no respect for America or Americans. They think government (themselves) made America great. The saddest story to come out of Washington is that we have the government we voted for. It's our fault. Stop voting for the two anti-American parties and vote for freedom. Vote third party.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

jmag, right on!
jmag said:

"Im looking for a pol ..... who will look into the camera and say " if I commit American troops to a fight, we are coming to destroy you . We are not coming to win your hearts and minds, we will deal with that after you fall on your knees to surrender and beg us to stop killing your forces."

You are absolutely correct -- that is what we need: the use of overwhelming force to inflict sufficient death, mayhem and destruction to convince everyone in Iraq, including the civilians, that their alternative is unconditional surrender and obedience to our orders or face total extermination.

That's what we did to the fanatical, suicidal Japanese in WWII -- and it is exactly what is needed to deal with the Islamists in the middle east.

The truly infuriating thing is that we achieved total victory in WWII against an enemy far, far more powerful than the 7th-century barbarians we are currently fighting in Iraq -- and we are far, far more powerful today than we were in WWII. But despite the drastic decrease in the strength of our adversary and the massive increase in our combat firepower and ability to wage war, today’s pacifist Democrats have convinced the majority of the American people that we cannot win against the invincible Muslims. Pathetic.



The Pledge
RE: desu's irrelevant comments:

"In a democracy, the people decide who goes to war."

and,

"What do you think Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution means when it says Congress has the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Dang, Boomer stole most of my thoughts! But I would add that, if Congress were really interested in fulfilling its responsibilities and if the motivation for these resolutions were honest, why not call right now to cut off funding for the war? The answer, of course, is that this move has a lot more to do with getting votes than with any convictions. The voters will let their feelings be known in 2008.

Republican supporters of the resolution should listen to the words of Sen. McCain when he said, "I would rather lose an election than lose a war."

As for desu's ridiculous assertion that the pro-war group should instead volunteer to join the fray, I would respond the same as Boomer did, that many of us did serve a long time ago, and would gladly do so again if the military would change its age limits.

I signed "the Pledge", and encourage others to do the same. I would also invite signers to send an additional message to the RNC by joining OPERATION VICTORY, which they can learn about at The Drum and Cannon blog. Just click on my name, above.

Iraq is NOT Vietnam
Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Our enemy in Vietnam was interested in only united all of Vietnam under communism. While supported by the PRC and USSR, North Vietnam and the Vietcong were not going to militarily attack the USA. Both Vietcong and N. Vietnamese might risk their lives for the cause but hoped not to survive.

Our enemy's leaders in Iraq, Sunni and Shiite radical jihadis, actually believe in dying, wishing to get killed, for their cause. They do not mind or are bothered if that included killing fellow Muslims even from the same sect if it means advancing radical Islam.

During the Cold War the Soviets didn't wish to die or have their country wiped off the Earth. That is why MAD policy worked. That is not true of at least some of the radical Islamic leaders, including those that those running Iran. They have clearly stated that starting the "final fiery conflagration" is fine with them and might even be their destiny.

The jihadis have much to gain in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Southern Philippines and elsewhere. Since Iraq is headlines in the American media, for propaganda purposes it would be the largest feather in the turban. It is traditional Arab land. It was home of some of the greatest civilizations on Earth that Muslims believe were the direct founders of their "civilization" before the enlighten by Mohammad.

The American left loved the 1960s. They brought down two President, now that is real power. They have dreamed about the halcyon days of the Vietnam Era of loves, peace and drugs. Now they have it. Why? because as Americans we are spoiled and extremely inpatient.

Boomer...
How correct you are. I am also sick of the appeasement mode.

Appeasement is a temporary thing. Yesterday, on another thread, I was fed up with the same old crap from dems who insist that terrorism doesn't exist, 9/11(Akimbo) was no great tragedy and Sadaam wasn't a bad man-he really was ready to negotiate(Super mario).

The fact that patriotism is lacking in this Country blows my mind. Do kids today even know "My Country Tis of Thee" or America the Beautiful" because they don't even remove their damn hats during the National Anthem. I served, although the Cold War period saw no combat, it was a great day when the wall came down.

What is the bottom line? I can tell you this- Preserving this country is the number one priority in this house and terrorism does exist. If we don't stand up and start using the technology, weapons and soldiers to show who and what we stand for, I fear we will be speaking a new language realtively soon. It is already happening in Europe.

Ben, You Nailed It
I agree 100% with your response to Gene Trouchet. That is why we have to blow away the fog and see things for what they are. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. We don't owe them anything and they don't deserve our unswerving loyalty. Voters should only care about issues, values and ideals. To politicians, the only issue is re-election or feather-bedding their next career via the lobbyists. Values? Ideals? Merely talking points.

Everythingisfree.
Huh, yourself.

Hopefully you were being facetious about North Korea.

But, if not, I did state in my last post, "Why stop there(Africa), the whole world awaits our sacrifice".

I daresay one would have to include North Korea as part of the world, although not a part of the world in which I would want to live.


Everythingisfree
Everythingisfree writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 12:27 PM
The Peaceful 90s (d'oh)
"America wasn't attacked by Islamic factions for 8 years and 8 months under Clinton"

Do embassies count? Or the WTC, attacked in 93? Or the millenium bomb plot? Or the Cole? Other than that, yes, no Islamic terrorism although I suppose there may have been a few ATF Muslims at Waco.

What planet does the reality based community reside on?

PS Osama Bin Laden went from slingshots to the planning for 9/11 on Clinton's watch. Clinton AND Bush failed, as well as the populace as the 90s was one big fat, dumb and happy ride even as the signs that a 9/11 was on the horizon grew. But Clinton was our leader and he fiddled while Osama plotted.
======================

You can’t have it both ways. If I remember the Clinton years right- there was not a day that the “liberal” media was not attacking him over the four or five investigations being conducted because of the republicans- none of which found any wrong doing on Clinton’s part.

The congress at that time was still being briefed on all security matters that the president received- that changed after 9-11.

Clinton was taking action, but he had the hounds at his feet the whole time, second guessing everything he did. Every action he took, the republicans called it waging the dogs (or what ever that saying is). Can you imagine if he tried to do more? Really?

If Clinton did do enough, the republican controlled congress deserves some of that blame.

Reagan and Bush sr. didn’t rush off to war over terrorist attacks either. The country simply would not have supported it prior to 9-11.

jerabaub misses the point
jerabaub said:

"Certainly black-skinned Africans, living in the two dozen nations in Africa where oppression reigns, are just as deserving of the blessings of liberty as are the folks in Iraq and the mideast."

What they deserve is irrelevant. What is in our interests is what counts.

An oil-rich nation like Iraq, dominated by terrorists married to an ideology that is explicitly bent on our destruction is, at least potentially, a threat -- and, therefore, it is in our interests to see to it that it does not fall to the terrorists. The same cannot be said for those African nations, at least not as far as I know.

This article certainly
brought out some vile comments.

Moondoggy you deserve kudos for your sacrifices. Irregardless of whether someone gets paid a "premium price" for going into the war zone, that person is not "obligated" to go.

Jack, I'll be up to your blog to see what you've got to sign. I already signed the Pledge.

Nee, I'm with you, I'm sick of appeasement. It gets us nowhere except to look weak.

http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com

Virginia Patriot
Virginia Patriot writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 12:39 PM
Final Straw
The final straw was the revelation of the totalization treaty with Mexico. This grand experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people is being usurped by government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. We will all become workers, documented or undocumented.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
===============================

Here here.. I agree.

Virginia Patriot- check out my blog-

Under “My Featured Post” is a link to a movie that goes in depth on this. I will have to admit, some of it- towards the end- is connecting some dots and could be construed as conspiracy theory, but it is interesting just the same. It is the second link under the post.

liberal goodman
Is almost always wrong

Volunteering for War
Unfortunatly, guys, I can't volunteer for the war because I have health issues that prevents me from doing so. However, I am one of those people that will personally thank someone who is in uniform for going because they are doing something that I can't.

BTW, for the guy that stated that We were not attacked under Bush 41 and Clinton, -- Bush 41 went to Kuwait so they were too busy fighting us over their. We were attacked several times (or don't you consider the WTC bombings and the African embassies -- which is considered US property -- and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemon as not being attacked on our soil?) Sorry, your defense of Clinton doesn't hold water.

I'm willing to Bush 43 another chance because at least he's DOING SOMETHING -- the only thing that I've ever seen the Democrats do is to grandstand on a peace that requires me to be beat up by everyone else -- no thank you...

Phylo
Can you explain (succinctly, please) exactly what the Democrats' "revised strategy" would be (other than immediate withdrawal)?

Bring back our allies? NEWS FLASH: Allies remain allies as long as they believe we are acting in their own best interests. The USSR was our "ally" when the Wehrmacht was advancing on Moscow. When Hitler's Naziism failed and Berlin burned, the soviets began grabbing eastern Europe.

We fought two wars against England, now they're our strongest ally.

"Regional stability" is meaningless. It may have had some relevance in the 1700's, but ICBM's and in-air fueling (not to mention suicidal airplane hijackers) have made "regions" meaningless. We live on a very small planet, politically and economically speaking.

In the period after WW II, the newly formed UN thought it could merely divide countries in half (Vietnam and Korea) and peace would result. The Democrats think that dividing Iraq into three regions would result in a kumbaya songfest amongst the Shia and Sunnis.

Is that what Iraqis have been asking for all this time? Is that what they voted for? Oh, right, the Iraqis aren't ready for Democracy.

Never mind.

Mike
Then I take it you reject President Bush's noble goal of democratizing the entire mideast.

There are nations in that region that do not possess substantial reserves of oil: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan.

If it is only about oil, then I guess those folks just don't deserve the blessings of democracy so advocated by our idealistic president.

Don't misunderstand me.

Our national interest must always be paramount.

I would actually have had more respect for this president's disastrous decision to invade Iraq had it been about oil and our national interest.

But when this president begins blathering about "democracy" for its own sake, then I begin to shudder.

Thanks for the comment.

The Pledge
"Mike" wrote:

"You are absolutely correct -- that is what we need: the use of overwhelming force to inflict sufficient death, mayhem and destruction to convince everyone in Iraq, including the civilians, that their alternative is unconditional surrender and obedience to our orders or face total extermination."
_____________________

Mike's ridiculous, comic book comments probably gained ten new recruits for al Qaeda if not more. To you libs out there, Mike's rant does not in any way represent the thinking of 99 out of 100 pro-war conservatives. Our desire is to provide a stable, peaceful Iraq, not a glass parking lot. The only way we can do this is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by providing them the security and stability that only the coalition and Iraqi militaries can bring about. We are not at war with the Iraqi people. We are at war with those who would deny them the chance to live in peace as well as those who are hell-bent on resurrecting a sectarian theocracy. Our enemies are the Shiite militias and the Sunni jihadists, not the vast majority of the war-weary people in Iraq. At the same time, we do not want a group of political hacks in Washington to make our goal more difficult to achieve.

Bleeding Heart
Hmm. That is a bitter pill you swallow. You are UFB! Does the f-ing money matter you self-righteous bleeding heart? Moondoggy can make all the money he wants, but how the hell will he spend it if he takes a dirt nap. Get a grip!! I am so sick of you people and YOUR misguided sense of what you define as patriotism, I could puke buckets. Do you have the balls to go take a job for the money in a danger zone? And save me the rhetoric of "well, I would, but I don't believe in the war(but I support the troops..."

Jack
I went up to your blog. Great place!

DavidMac
DavidMac writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 1:03 PM

===============================

The UN didn't divide those countries.

After WWI, Wilson fought to create the League of Nations. It proved to be weak and was unable to stand against Hitler and thus WWII.

North Korea was divided, and prevented to be a whole communist state, after that war. That was part of the series of wars under the policy of the domino effect- stopping the spread of communism. Vietnam was also part of this geo-political theory. The UN really had nothing to do with it.

CraigC
Ditto.

I went to your blog? What's up?

Nee
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Jack
But the problem is we are attempting to conduct a "war on terror" in the midst of a civil war between sunni and shia, which we inadvertently created by removing the one force that held sectarianism in check...your pal Saddam(just kidding).

I question whether Islam, as it presently exists, is compatible with democracy.

Even in Europe, a continent enjoying the "blessings of liberty", many muslim immigrants are demanding Sharia law replace European justice systems in those neighborhoods they have segregated themselves into.

In Iraq, "free" elections have resulted in a government largely beholden to shia militias more interested in exacting revenge upon Iraqi sunnis than in respecting religious differences and other characteristics of democracy. In fact, the Iraqi government went on record as sympathizing with Hezbollah in the recent flareup in Lebanon.

In Egypt, Palestinian territory and Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah have all made impressive gains through the electoral process.

Attention Real Americans
Saturday, January 27, 2007
March on Washington: Urge War Supporters to Be A Man! Enlist!

Attention Real Americans:

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Local authorities in Washington, D.C. have granted a permit for war supporters to counter-protest today at the Navy Memorial, 8th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Metro Archives-Navy Memorial on the Green Line.

So, please stop by and urge any under-42 healthy heterosexuals there to Be A Man! Enlist!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

Jack writes:
Jack writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 1:12 PM
The Pledge
"Mike" wrote:

"You are absolutely correct -- that is what we need: the use of overwhelming force to inflict sufficient death, mayhem and destruction to convince everyone in Iraq, including the civilians, that their alternative is unconditional surrender and obedience to our orders or face total extermination."
_____________________

Mike's ridiculous, comic book comments probably gained ten new recruits for al Qaeda if not more. To you libs out there, Mike's rant does not in any way represent the thinking of 99 out of 100 pro-war conservatives. Our desire is to provide a stable, peaceful Iraq, not a glass parking lot. The only way we can do this is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by providing them the security and stability that only the coalition and Iraqi militaries can bring about. We are not at war with the Iraqi people. We are at war with those who would deny them the chance to live in peace as well as those who are hell-bent on resurrecting a sectarian theocracy. Our enemies are the Shiite militias and the Sunni jihadists, not the vast majority of the war-weary people in Iraq. At the same time, we do not want a group of political hacks in Washington to make our goal more difficult to achieve.

=============================

While I am glad to hear someone say this- this is not the majority thoughts on this site. Too many consider, "doing something" a policy. Bomb them to what ever seems a reasonable method.

War for the sake of war is not a strategy. If we don’t distinguish between the terrorist and the moderates in the Middle East and use policy to win the support of the moderates while defending against the terrorist- we will only make things worse. Which, in my opinion, is happening.

The cold war was waged over 50 years of steady progressive steps. This war will be won in the same fashion. But, we are on the wrong course.

Peppermint
My Dad died. I've been working too many hours.
Etc. I'll try to put up some more stuff soon. The presidential campaigns are starting already and Cut & Run Kerry is providing ammunition, so there is hope.

Nee writes:
Nee writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 1:19 PM
Bleeding Heart
Hmm. That is a bitter pill you swallow. You are UFB! Does the f-ing money matter you self-righteous bleeding heart? Moondoggy can make all the money he wants, but how the hell will he spend it if he takes a dirt nap. Get a grip!! I am so sick of you people and YOUR misguided sense of what you define as patriotism, I could puke buckets. Do you have the balls to go take a job for the money in a danger zone? And save me the rhetoric of "well, I would, but I don't believe in the war(but I support the troops..."

===============================

I’m a veteran and I see a huge difference in a military person and mercenaries .
Part of the problem is that they don’t have to follow the same ROE. They can be used in ways that don’t live up to the standards of our country. And, those methods can and will undermine our purpose there.
Secondly, how the people there see them used matters too. When they see people for hire vs. a professional military- it sends a very wrong message to them. [the ones we are their to help].

Lastly, a military person dedicates their life or a portion of it to this country. They swear an oath to defend our constitution and to follow the orders of the president.

Using mercenaries in this war, to me, undermines our mission.


CraigC
I'm so sorry. My condolences to you and your family.
Having recently gone through the deaths of both of my parents, my heart goes out to you. It's really hard.

Jerebaub
"I question whether Islam, as it presently exists, is compatible with democracy."

We have many Muslims living here in the states under our Constitution. That would encourage me to believe that there are Muslims who like freedom and welcome it.

Under radical Islamic beliefs I can see your point.

On Clinton and "wag the dog"
There is great merit to the argument that Republicans were obstructionists on the GWOT in the 90s. It is important to remember that Clinton wanted to take out Saddam in 1998 for harboring and financing terrorists and to retaliate for the attempted assassination of Bush '41 on his Kuwait visit. The GOP refused to go along but agreed to change the Iraq policy from "containment" to "regime change" and looked the other way during the 3-day bombing of Baghdad. This is also a cautionary tale for those who argue that character doesn't count in defending McCain and Guiliani. This has been a bipartisan failure led by the corporate globalists with "one-world" ambitions where there are no nations or borders. And don't bother attacking me with "yeah but" responses. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I get it. But it is also Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

virginia patriot
You can quit talking about 'illegal immigrants', 'illegal aliens' or 'undocumented workers' or whatever is the choice phrase of the day.
We have been invaded and these invaders are armed and armed well.
I know because I lived in a 'barrio' and their first paycheck or so goes to the purchase of a 'pistola'. 9mm auto is the weapon of choice. I think one reason that these illegals are so quick to purchase a 'pistola' is because it is highly illegal in Mexico. But that is not our problem. Our problem is 12 Million Foreigners that have Invaded our soil and they are Armed. Even if I am wrong by half (which I don't think I am)...even if I am wrong by half, that is still SIX MILLION NON-CITIZENS ARMED AND ON OUR SOIL! Pretty good size army, if you ask me. And with close to 20 divisions in Iraq, who the phuck is watching the back door?????

message to moondoggy
Thank you for your service...and willingness to put yourself in harms way to make sure that the soldiers' equipment is sound. Please continue to flood the bloglines with facts instead of rhetorical/hypothetical/incoherent b.s. that both the right and left sides of the spectrum are doing (do we actually think that we will change minds and hearts this way). Please convince your fellow warrior-citizens to do the same...we need to hear from you all! We won't hear the truth any other way.

A message to the liberal with the "bleeding heart": back off of moondoggy! People who attack the character of those who serve America are no better than the people that seek to destroy the idealogy of libery and democracy! Nobody has the right put knives in the backs of those who serve us.

jeraboob, Ben
I mentioned yesterday that the world has changed. Hundreds of years ago we could run from what we didn't like and we did. Thus the US of A. We now have technology on our side and we can take anyone out if we choose. We can also help whom we choose(hint:Iraq). Now, with all the bleeding hearts out there and the fact that everyone does look to us, we can't just go in and take over something, it would cause an uproar and we would be the monsters, and hence, we are because the dems and friends the media have sympathy for terrorists and don't believe in the threats that will eventually destroy this Country.
Ben...you said "Clinton was taking action, but he had the hounds at his feet the whole time, second guessing everything he did. Every action he took, the republicans called it waging the dogs (or what ever that saying is). Can you imagine if he tried to do more? Really?"

You jest? Clinton was busy appeasing North Korea and left them unchecked since 98 and now they have nukes. Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter and oops let him go, twice. So, tell me how the democrats are not doing the same thing as what you claim the republicans did to poor old Bill. He brought all those slimy people into his administration and it was clouded by Republican iunvestigations? Give me a break.
He was guilty of obstruction of justice, ie, impeached. How many investigations have been started since Bush has been in office... Hmm, I could give you a big 'ol list on Clinton AND Bush. Again, you see what you want to see in my humble opinion. The investigations were all a waste of time and taxpayer money if the rule of law was not applied to the full extent. And, save me from the statements that repubs have done much worse than Bill or some dems, because I will never agree. And that his wife who has no self-respect only lust for power will be a great president and go to him for advice is a ddisgusting thought. Two lying peas in a pod, right there. Some Repubs deserve what they get as well...

President Bush has not wavered in his beliefs and makes no apologies. He has has said many times, if he were never elected, it wouldn't be the end of his world, so for everyone who claims Iraq is an avenging act for his father's mistakes and that he is power hungry should just turn the mirror back on themselves. Can Kerry, or "for the small man" Edwards who has a 28,000 sq foot home say the same, can Hilary? No, They want the power and f---k the establishment, the rules,etc... They will do whatever it takes-- including letting this Country be socialized, terrorized and over-run with all the immigrants that they can squeeze in if it will mean more votes. Yep, I hate Bush's immigration policy and I do volunteer to help the Minutemen project...
As the Eagles or maybe it was Don Henley said,
"I WILL NOT GO QUIETLY"

Peppermint
Those many muslims living here under our Constitution are only waiting for the time to strike at the evil satan.

There are no muslims who do not desire to destroy us.'

There are NO "Moderate" muslims. If they were such "Moderate" muslims, they wouldn't be muslims because islam teaches convert or kill.

Muslims are taught and believe that it is morally justifiable to lie to an infidel because he is not a muslim; to cheat on an infidel because he is not a muslim; to steal from an infidel and to kill an infidel all in the name of islam.


Buck
I don't mean to quibble, but a division in the US Army is close to 35,000 troops, maybe a little more. So we have the equivalent of about four divisions over there.

stromsdaughter
I actually looked at your link to youtube...I think threw up a little on my keyboard when I saw that you actually referred us to a video of Farrakhan. Do you think that he speaks for the vast majority of muslims? Was that a press conference from his bathroom? I don't mean to be insulting to a person that I don't even know, but GEEEEEEEEEZ!

Buck 2
I misspoke. The Corps has 35,000 or so. The division has 15K to 17K troops. So that would be the equivalent of about 8-9 divisions currently over there.

Buck
"Those many muslims living here under our Constitution are only waiting for the time to strike at the evil satan."

I was attempting to have a positive attitude, but you know how I really feel.

To Stromsdaughter
Why should anyone give a sh*t for anything Farrakhan says? We don't and the Muslims don't either. The real Muslims do not recognize the "Nation of Islam". They will gladly cut his head off as fast as anyone else's.

The beginning of TRUE CONSERVATISM
is about to take root once again. This could be the long anticipated rebirth of REAGANISM. It could even be the birth of a new Third party and coalition government in our country - an idea whose time has certainly come. The two ESTABLISHMENT parties have TURNED their back on mainstream America. This new Re-awakening will be a political force to be reckoned with once it coems to fruition. Ensign signaled to Hewitt in his "litmus test" remark that he wasn't going to be accountable to anyone but his own arrogant self and his fellow arrogant, pompous, demigod Senators. All of these 60's and 70's retreads in the Senate today are just neo-hippies reliving their yout hand positioning themselves for re-election to continue to live off the government welfare state they have created known as the US Senate, a welfare state and country club for mostly arrogant lawyers. I see a vision of one day both the Democratic and Republican parties becoming extinct dinosaurs and replaced by the Libertarian and the new "Conservative" parties. Neither party today embraces new ideas or stands for common decency andstatesmanship any more. True character and leadership in ANY of today's leaders is very hard to find. True respect for our laws and sovereignty is thrown out the door when these anti-Americans we call politicians inhabit our government like aliens from outerspace. It is almost as if al Qaeda is running the US government today with no insistence on protecting our border and allowing illegals to run amok and collect money to go to college and for medicare and free public school education at taxpayers' expense. It is mindless insanity. Senators have proposed in their numerous illegal immigration proposals to eventually allow ALL members and extended members of illegal imigrants' families to come to our country as well once citizenship isgrantedto just ONE illegal immigrant(think Jorge, the construction worker). This makes the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here now balloon any where from 35 to 60 million immigrants when all issaid and done. The Social Security demand would BREAK THIS COUNTRY's BACK IN TWO. There is no mathematical analysis known to man that can support this insanity. Of course, Jorge and Juanita, once they're thoroughly ensconced here will be in the backpocket of the Democratic party like 92% of black America for at least one or two generations until their offspring are clued in to which party commits TREASON every day of its waking life and desires the downfall of conservative American society and Christian values and desires everyone to live in perpetual victimhood off the government's welfare teat. Of course, all of that's assuming their offspring aren't thoroughly brainwashed in public school and intentionally dumbed down enough in public school to be future Democratic party voters and that they really want to be part of American culture and speak the English language, which is certainly not the case with Mexicans. The bottom line is that Illegal Immigration is national suicide. GOP'ers who think Illegal Immigration sunk us in the last election have completely misinterpreted the results understandably so I might add. We lost because we are fighting a PC war. The American People are mostly uneducated or poorly informed idiots who follow their emotions. Everyone knew we were in a stalemate in Iraq because the Iraqi troops and police were deserting the mission and corrupt. They were not sharing the load and the US military was fighting PC warfare which never works. The GOP got thrown out as a protest against a misfought Iraqi war and a correct perception of the GOP as a party that spends the Peoples' money like drunken sailors on shore leave. It's that simple. The GOP's image is tainted now. They have betrayed TRUE CONSERVATISM as Barnett poits out. Honestly, the GOP's reputation is so tarnished that I believe TRUE CONSERVATIVES need to abandon the sinking ship and start a fresh new party.

Nee
Nee writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 2:06 PM You jest?
[Clinton was busy appeasing North Korea and left them unchecked since 98 and now they have nukes. Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter and oops let him go, twice. So, tell me how the democrats are not doing the same thing as what you claim the republicans did to poor old Bill. He brought all those slimy people into his administration and it was clouded by Republican iunvestigations? Give me a break. ]

------------------------------------------

No, I don’t jest. The treaties with N. Korea were also voted on by the senate- a republican majority senate. Again, if the policy was bad- our government went into it together. We do not live in a dictatorship.

As far as Bush goes, the unitary presidency speaks volumes about what you are accusing the Clintons of. If power meant nothing to him, this would not even be a consideration- no one that understands our Constitution could even fathom the concept.

Ben posted,
"The UN didn't divide those countries." (Regarding Korea and Vietnam)

WIKIPEDIA: (Korea) "With the defeat of Japan in 1945, the United Nations developed plans for a trusteeship administration, the Soviet Union administering the peninsula north of the 38th parallel and the United States administering the south."

The Geneva Accords was a treaty that divided Vietnam into two separate countries in 1954. Participants included the USA, PRC, USSR, UK, Cambodia, France, Laos, Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Communists), State of Vietnam (South Vietnam). Only the DRV and France signed the accords. There was a planned election for reunification in 1956 but it never occurred.

No, the UN didn't mandate the division of Vietnam in 1954, but its fingerprints were all over it. The UN's doctrine of division was followed at Geneva.

The point I was attempting to make was that merely dividing a country in half is a really stupid diplomatic move.

Buck
Buck writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Peppermint
Those many muslims living here under our Constitution are only waiting for the time to strike at the evil satan.

There are no muslims who do not desire to destroy us.'

There are NO "Moderate" muslims. If they were such "Moderate" muslims, they wouldn't be muslims because islam teaches convert or kill.

Muslims are taught and believe that it is morally justifiable to lie to an infidel because he is not a muslim; to cheat on an infidel because he is not a muslim; to steal from an infidel and to kill an infidel all in the name of islam.

=========================

Buck, then why are we there in Iraq? What is our purpose?

And, check out this article by a Muslim disputing Bin Laden’s methods.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200408250840.asp

Mustafa Akyol is from Turkey, our ally in Nato.

I am not scholar on Islam, but I find it a ridicules notion that we lump them all into one category- terrorist. We can twist their religion all day long and they in turn can twist ours. At the end of the day, all that will do is ensure failure.


so, Ben...
Please enlighten me on "unitary" Presidency...and tell me how it is that Bush is manipulating laws and people to obstruct justice,gain monetarily and flaunt power like the Clinton Administration has done and continues to do, as others take his falls. I suppose giving Sandy Berger a "deal" on stealing documents was about power? Again, enlighten me on Bush's lust for power and the actions being used to get there...And, again,save the war argument, because I absolutely don't buy into that line.

DavidMac
DavidMac writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 2:55 PM

===================================

I stand corrected- I think- I cannot find, "WIKIPEDIA: (Korea) "With the defeat of Japan in 1945, the United Nations developed plans for a trusteeship administration, the Soviet Union administering the peninsula north of the 38th parallel and the United States administering the south."

can you provide a link?

I did find this:

During the latter part of the Joseon Dynasty, Korea's isolationist policy earned it the Western nickname the "Hermit Kingdom". By the late 19th century, the country became the object of colonial designs by the imperial aggressors of Japan and Europe. In 1910, Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan and remained occupied until the end of World War II in 1945.
In 1945, Soviet Union and United States troops occupied the northern and southern halves of the country, respectively. The two Cold War enemies helped establish governments sympathetic to their own ideologies, leading to Korea's current division into two political entities: North Korea and South Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea#History

I didn’t see anything about the UN mandating this. Again, I think this had more to do with the “domino theory.” That we had to stop, and rightfully so, the spread of communism.
=============

My intended point was less about the UN and more about the reason those events came about.

1 more thing...
On some other thread, a military person posted what the rules of engagement were...I believe with the exception of getting involved in a military firefight, the rules of engagement are the same. A helicopter mechanic isn't removed from the FOB just because it's a civilian doing the job. The risks are the exact same. Your assumption that it takes away from the servicemember and the mission doesn't wash, especially since a great percentage of them are former military and have a basic understanding of the ROE. In some cases, better than the troops. You know who takes away from the mission? The embedded civilian reporters, reporting what they see. Where have you seen a fair portrayal of what goes on... and when have any of you lefties ever believed those you term "mercenaries", soldiers or any other credible source in Iraq? You don't want any info straight forom the Horse's mouth because it would be admitting to some good taking place.
Moondoggy, 1leg,eagleone, if I am not right about this, I stand corrected.

Nee
Nee writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 3:20 PM
so, Ben...
Please enlighten me on "unitary" Presidency...and tell me how it is that Bush is manipulating laws and people to obstruct justice,gain monetarily and flaunt power like the Clinton Administration has done and continues to do, as others take his falls. I suppose giving Sandy Berger a "deal" on stealing documents was about power? Again, enlighten me on Bush's lust for power and the actions being used to get there...And, again,save the war argument, because I absolutely don't buy into that line.
========================================




Okay. This is a good discussion on the topic.
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1203

Here is some more.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html


Now, it is your turn. How did Clinton undermine our Constitution?

And, what Burger did, he did on his own- as far as I know. Clinton was not in office at the time.

Islam and Democracy
jerabaub:

RE:I question whether Islam, as it presently exists, is compatible with democracy.
_________________

Probably not the same as we think of democracy. But how many hundreds of years did it take for western civilization to come around? I think that Turkey may be the closest Islamic comparison, and they have a secularist government that rejected theocracy. Lebanon is trying, but Syria and Iran are doing everything they can to prevent it.



Nee
Nee writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 3:38 PM
1 more thing...
On some other thread, a military person posted what the rules of engagement were...I believe with the exception of getting involved in a military firefight, the rules of engagement are the same. A helicopter mechanic isn't removed from the FOB just because it's a civilian doing the job. The risks are the exact same. Your assumption that it takes away from the servicemember and the mission doesn't wash, especially since a great percentage of them are former military and have a basic understanding of the ROE. In some cases, better than the troops. You know who takes away from the mission? The embedded civilian reporters, reporting what they see. Where have you seen a fair portrayal of what goes on... and when have any of you lefties ever believed those you term "mercenaries", soldiers or any other credible source in Iraq? You don't want any info straight forom the Horse's mouth because it would be admitting to some good taking place.
Moondoggy, 1leg,eagleone, if I am not right about this, I stand corrected.
=============================

On your point of embedded reporters.



The Baker/Hamilton report stated that the administration and the media were under reporting the violence in Iraq.

Here check out this: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/

The unfortunate reality is that we could have succeeded, and still will one day, if Bush had planned for victory. They were operating with extremely limited information. They ignored all experts and only listened to the Neo-conservative elites.

Politics and Patriotism
It is all very interesting, which political party screwed up, when and how they did. The point is, America is at war now- the question is do we have the will to win? Unfortunately, the left and the democrats and not a few republicans have lost the will to win any fight, because they have lost the belief that America is worth fighting for. All this self-hatred and appeasement of our enemies is something I cannot understand. We are a country full of good and generous people. I do not understand how easily we have been led to believe that we are not.

Doing Your Part,, as Moondoogy Says
Moondoggy:

I agree with your view that every American should do their part. In my view, that should be military service. If every single American man and woman was required to serve in the military either just before or just after college, we'd be in far, FAR less military actions.

I have a personal question for you, Moondoggy. How do you feel working side-by-side with enlisted men, doing the same job as they, and earning, what, 5 times their pay? How do they feel about that? And what's your view on the war profiteering that's been done by every private contractor from Halliburton to KBR to Blackwater, and dozens of others?

Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net

Politics
It's unfortunate that due to political correctness and the anti-American and anti-war faction in America, that President Bush decided to fight this war in a P.C. manner. The fact remains that he at least understands that America is at war, and is willing to fight. He has made mistakes, yes; the most egregious being not sending enough American troops to kill the enemy at the outset, and worrying about democracy after the enemy had been destroyed. Destroy first, build up second. It's worked in the past- why change a winning formula- except that the P.C. crowd insists that a culture that wants to destroy our culture is just as valid as ours.

Cruel and Unusual Strategy
We could airdrop all the liberals and anti-US protestors on them. The