Give Dems a D-For Defeatism

[DKW 86 7,437]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...9p-362255c.html

Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

[TexasTiger 12,979]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...9p-362255c.html

Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

243198[/snapback]

Newsflash--- a Democrat was President during D-day and a Republican was President when we cut and ran in Viet Nam.

[DKW 86 7,437]

An Old style Dem was President on D-Day.

A Republican was President at Appamatox.

And Vietnam was a micromanaged unwinnable war after a Dem Congress got involved.

[Captain Liger 0]

And Vietnam was a micromanaged unwinnable war

243216[/snapback]

E.g. - LBJ being patched through to company commanders in the jungle and making decisions for them. - General officers being forced to hover in Hueys above infantry troops in contact with the enemy and giving orders via megaphones. - The obsession with enemy body count

etc, etc, etc

[TexasTiger 12,979]

And Vietnam was a micromanaged unwinnable war

243216[/snapback]

E.g. - LBJ being patched through to company commanders in the jungle and making decisions for them. - General officers being forced to hover in Hueys above infantry troops in contact with the enemy and giving orders via megaphones. - The obsession with enemy body count

etc, etc, etc

243222[/snapback]

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of military history, do you need to be reminded that Viet Nam fell more than 6 years after LBJ?

[Captain Liger 0]

And Vietnam was a micromanaged unwinnable war

243216[/snapback]

E.g. - LBJ being patched through to company commanders in the jungle and making decisions for them. - General officers being forced to hover in Hueys above infantry troops in contact with the enemy and giving orders via megaphones. - The obsession with enemy body count

etc, etc, etc

243222[/snapback]

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of military history, do you need to be reminded that Viet Nam fell more than 6 years after LBJ?

243228[/snapback]

Yeah thanks guy, I know my military history. I'm simply commenting on its micromanagement from the very top. Nothing more nothing less. Leave it at that.

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...9p-362255c.html

Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

243198[/snapback]

Newsflash--- a Democrat was President during D-day and a Republican was President when we cut and ran in Viet Nam.

243206[/snapback]

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of reading, I will point out that the author didn't mention who was president or which party he was from, but that if any of "the many Democrats running for President," NOW. Just trying to be helpful.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

[TexasTiger 12,979]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...9p-362255c.html

Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

243198[/snapback]

Newsflash--- a Democrat was President during D-day and a Republican was President when we cut and ran in Viet Nam.

243206[/snapback]

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of reading, I will point out that the author didn't mention who was president or which party he was from, but that if any of "the many Democrats running for President," NOW. Just trying to be helpful.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

243281[/snapback]

Well, if we are just speculating, if Bush was at the helm at D-Day we'd have lost. The guy is grossly incompetent at everything. Couldn't even find oil in Texas.

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...9p-362255c.html

Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

243198[/snapback]

Newsflash--- a Democrat was President during D-day and a Republican was President when we cut and ran in Viet Nam.

243206[/snapback]

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of reading, I will point out that the author didn't mention who was president or which party he was from, but that if any of "the many Democrats running for President," NOW. Just trying to be helpful.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

243281[/snapback]

Well, if we are just speculating, if Bush was at the helm at D-Day we'd have lost. The guy is grossly incompetent at everything. Couldn't even find oil in Texas.

243282[/snapback]

It sure hurts you deep that he beat the two best the dims had to offer doesn't it?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Tex, this malignity you show towards the Commander in Chief can be nothing but unhealthy for you. You should really try meditating and getting in touch with that little Texas Tiger within before you give yourself an ulcer. Bush is the president man, and he will be for another 2+ years. The sooner you grip that fact, the healthier you will be.

BTW, I applaud you for adding my quote to your signature line. I appear to reside with some good company. For the record, I could really care less about winning the hearts and minds of the people who inhabit the triangle of death, as the media love to call it. My "strategy" calls for this triangle to be reversed, to make it the triangle of their death. You win these people's respect by being tough and firm, not by playing patty-cake with them. You defeat these insurgents by instilling fear in them that should they decide to stray to the wrong side of the path there will be swift and harsh consequences, most likely their death. We're not there to paint orphanages, we're there to kill bad guys. Our two captured soldiers were mutilated. They were beheaded. They were tortured unmercifully while still alive by the disciples of Allah. I hear no words of outrage from the “left” today. Not a single word from Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Howard Dean or John Murtha. If they speak at all, it is only to blame our president. Yet, these are the head cheerleaders calling for inquiries anytime one of our guys so much as touches one of these savages too hard. Whose side are they on? Whose side are YOU on?

Feel free to add that if you care to.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

[TexasTiger 12,979]

Tex, this malignity you show towards the Commander in Chief can be nothing but unhealthy for you. You should really try meditating and getting in touch with that little Texas Tiger within before you give yourself an ulcer. Bush is the president man, and he will be for another 2+ years. The sooner you grip that fact, the healthier you will be.

BTW, I applaud you for adding my quote to your signature line. I appear to reside with some good company. For the record, I could really care less about winning the hearts and minds of the people who inhabit the triangle of death, as the media love to call it. My "strategy" calls for this triangle to be reversed, to make it the triangle of their death. You win these people's respect by being tough and firm, not by playing patty-cake with them. You defeat these insurgents by instilling fear in them that should they decide to stray to the wrong side of the path there will be swift and harsh consequences, most likely their death. We're not there to paint orphanages, we're there to kill bad guys. Our two captured soldiers were mutilated. They were beheaded. They were tortured unmercifully while still alive by the disciples of Allah. I hear no words of outrage from the “left” today. Not a single word from Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Howard Dean or John Murtha. If they speak at all, it is only to blame our president. Yet, these are the head cheerleaders calling for inquiries anytime one of our guys so much as touches one of these savages too hard. Whose side are they on? Whose side are YOU on?

Feel free to add that if you care to.

243286[/snapback]

So how would you define the mission in Iraq?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Right now? Stabilization. Stabilization sometimes requires neutralization. Until the bad guys are neutralized (ie, dead), stabilization can't take place. That is why I advocate killing the terrorists instead of arresting or "detaining" them. Kill them and be done with them, once and for all. Then move on to the next town and repeat step #1.

Give me 3 months and I would have the "triangle of death" secured.

[TexasTiger 12,979]

Right now? Stabilization. Stabilization sometimes requires neutralization. Until the bad guys are neutralized (ie, dead), stabilization can't take place. That is why I advocate killing the terrorists instead of arresting or "detaining" them. Kill them and be done with them, once and for all. Then move on to the next town and repeat step #1.

Give me 3 months and I would have the "triangle of death" secured.

243303[/snapback]

What is the longterm objective of us being in Iraq?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Having an Iraq that is peaceful, stable, and secure.

[Tigermike 3,046]

Right now? Stabilization. Stabilization sometimes requires neutralization. Until the bad guys are neutralized (ie, dead), stabilization can't take place. That is why I advocate killing the terrorists instead of arresting or "detaining" them. Kill them and be done with them, once and for all. Then move on to the next town and repeat step #1.

Give me 3 months and I would have the "triangle of death" secured.

243303[/snapback]

What is the longterm objective of us being in Iraq?

243307[/snapback]

From what TIS said, it would appear that both the long term and short term are intertwined. Dead terrorists, stabilization of the country and dead terrorists. The same can be said of Afghanistan. I would think that the majority of Americans would think both objectives are good for the US and good for the world. I've been at a loss for years as to why democrats don't think that eliminating international terrorism is good for the world.

To get back on subject, the title of this article "Give Dem '08 hopefuls a D - for defeatism" is appropriate. BTW, you can't blame Karl Rove for that either, your guys have done this all on their own.

[GoAU 1,600]

So how would you define the mission in Iraq?

What is the longterm objective of us being in Iraq?

Mission - A 3 phased operation:

1) Remove psychotic, unstable regime that presents a true threat to the US and it's neighbors from power - COMPLETE

2) Install a democratic gov. - COMPLETE

3) Stabilize - Ongoing

The fact is that we have a long fight ahead of us. Libs and people like you lack the intestinal fortutde to follow through and would rather "cut and run" - that is a fact. if it hurts, grow a set and change your outlook on things. I would imagine most of the people criticizing the war now are the same people who want lots f things but are willing to truely work at nothing. They want immediate rewards for minimal effort.

I will concede that there are some people who have opposed this war from the beginning due to being pacifists. Although I disagree with their viewpoint, I can respect it. The thing is most people being vocal now have flip flopped, just like their leader - the King of Flip, Kerry. It just pisses me off that people like you would disgrace our nation and our soldiers by running and hiding because something can't be won in a day. If you don't have the guts to make it happen, sit back, shut up and stay out of the way.

The objective:

1) Provide for the security of our nation and our way of life - first and foremost go after those that threaten us with a vengance. Forget Clinton's approach of lobbing a Tomahawk or two into Afganistan - go in there and get the b*****ds. What Bush is doing is working - there has not been another attack since 9/11, and I guarentee you it's not because they haven't tried.

2) Assist in installing democratic governments - this is still going on, and will for quite some time. I've accepted that, and know that not everything in life comes with push button convience.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

So how would you define the mission in Iraq?

What is the longterm objective of us being in Iraq?

Mission - A 3 phased operation:

1) Remove psychotic, unstable regime that presents a true threat to the US and it's neighbors from power - COMPLETE

2) Install a democratic gov. - COMPLETE

3) Stabilize - Ongoing

The fact is that we have a long fight ahead of us. Libs and people like you lack the intestinal fortutde to follow through and would rather "cut and run" - that is a fact. if it hurts, grow a set and change your outlook on things. I would imagine most of the people criticizing the war now are the same people who want lots f things but are willing to truely work at nothing. They want immediate rewards for minimal effort.

I will concede that there are some people who have opposed this war from the beginning due to being pacifists. Although I disagree with their viewpoint, I can respect it. The thing is most people being vocal now have flip flopped, just like their leader - the King of Flip, Kerry. It just pisses me off that people like you would disgrace our nation and our soldiers by running and hiding because something can't be won in a day. If you don't have the guts to make it happen, sit back, shut up and stay out of the way.

The objective:

1) Provide for the security of our nation and our way of life - first and foremost go after those that threaten us with a vengance. Forget Clinton's approach of lobbing a Tomahawk or two into Afganistan - go in there and get the b*****ds. What Bush is doing is working - there has not been another attack since 9/11, and I guarentee you it's not because they haven't tried.

2) Assist in installing democratic governments - this is still going on, and will for quite some time. I've accepted that, and know that not everything in life comes with push button convience.

243326[/snapback]

Tex,

When I mentioned a "broadside" in another post, this is what I meant!

Well put, sir!