At the Putnam I saw an interesting plaque on the wall about the 1864 election. The Democrat VP candidate promised the electorate that if they win, the Union Army will be withdrawn and the war ended immediately. I guess Democrats have the practice of Cutting and Running for over 100 years.

A man would do nothing, if he waited until he could do it so well that no one at all would find fault with what he has done. — Cardinal Newman

I think this is the biggest part of this, the libs and Dems are using this all as an excuse because they want to do nothing about the real problems and issues facing this country. Far easier to bleat “that’s a flawed approach” than actually get off their butts and do something. It’s an excuse to not have to get involved, to let problems fester, rather than tackle the task with maturity and resolve.

Nothing ever is perfect, but you keep on trying, despite setbacks and failures, if you keep adapting and moving forward, and don’t just quit, you will eventually be able to turn a mountain into dust. Sitting around whining on your butt accomplishes nothing, which is apparently the goal all along, to kneecap the US’s ability to accomplish its goals and protect its interests.

It goes even deeper than that, Sev. They’ve also been spoon-fed the drivel that right and wrong are outmoded concepts, you shouldn’t make moral judgements, and human life really has little intrinsic value. Once you have that ingrained into your developing brain, it’s not hard to conclude that philosophies like communism weren’t evil or wrong – just different. It isn’t wrong for nations like China to enforce a one-child-only policy through mandatory abortion – just different. And it’s not necessarily evil to have concepts like honor killings – just different.

Eventually, you reach the point where they see no point in defending so-called values like freedom, because who are we to say our way is better? And a society that sees nothing in itself worth preserving is a society that will never exert the effort to defend itself. That’s pretty much where your average liberal is today.

Not a single Senator who supports this nonsense can defend it on grounds of national security. Not a single one. How does limiting the President’s capabilities as commander in chief improve national security? How does limiting the military’s capabili…

Good point. I think they are probably the result of the modern liberal educational system where no one ever “loses” and everyone gets a prize. They haven’t learned that there is a difference between loosing and winning, it’s all “everybody gets a cupcake!” regardless of their performance. So to them there is never a downside to losing, and they also have never learned that anything worth doing is usually difficult and hard, the modern liberal ideology is that everything should be handed to you by someone else, you shouldn’t have to work for it.

It’s why Democrats should not be in charge of our national security – the basic lack of perspective.

Hampering our efforts with a ceiling via some legislatures/representatives is sure way to hamper a war effort. War run by committee.

It’s what I was trying to say with the wearing the shirt comments up above. What do you do – prosecute a soldier for not getting the right guy? How do you tell who is the right guy? They AREN’T wearing shirts that tell them apart.

Operationally, it has to be the DUMBEST war plan I’ve seen yet from the Democrats. For as much disunity and criticism I’ve heard from the Dem’s it’s about time they hear how awful their plan is for a change. WHY? Because they offered one finally other than “re-deployement”.

Wait a minute – we should pass a law that all rapists must wear a shirt identifying themselves. Same as murderers. Same as Democrats and Republicans. We sure would know how to interact with each other better then wouldn’t we????

Providing details about future plans for Iraq to people who are not involved in it’s strategy is reckless and stupid. That is precisely what our enemies want to know. We used to call that kind of info intel. Know that there is no ceiling and that this will carry on till you hear different is ALL that the uninvolved peeps need to know. ANY other strategy is simply temerarious and costs far more in lives, time and money.

The experts disagree – the strategy/plan issued by the WH

Those aren’t “experts”; they’re politicians. They’ve got their idea of what victory is, and others have different ideas. These are policy differences.

This week the act is as if Al Qaida in Iraq all have certain color shirts with the writing “I’m in Al Qaida”.

No one’s saying it’ll be that easy. The new AUMF will set a ceiling, not a floor, for action. If there’s reason to think group X is al-Qaeda, we go after them. What we won’t do, however, is play international cop. Matters of day-to-day security should be the Iraqis’ concern, not ours.

It’s defined. Learn it so that you don’t look silly writing what you wrote…

Tommy you get so foggy – this is why you need to cut the weed because you wrote, “More than half the country doesn’t support Baklava because if they did I’m pretty sure the G.O.P. would still control both Houses. ”

The QUESTION at hand was whether or not it was of value to remove Saddam. YOU WROTE IT but didn’t follow the line of reasoning I guess. The vote for Democrats in November was NOT about whether or not it was good to remove Saddam. It was about Iraq for sure but that’s because many have been convinced that our troops shouldn’t be there anymore. Polls clearly indicate that they are glad Saddam is gone. UNfog your brain and you won’t have these lapses in logic….

As for your last comments… removing troops does not end a war if the enemy is determined to kill you wherever you are. If during WW2 we removed our troops and said we are taking too many losses – the war would not have ended. We would only take more losses and quicker.

I can only hope therefore that a Democrat does NOT win the WH. It is how Islamofacists got so powerful in the first place (during Clinton) while Bush is in office 2/3rds of the Al Qaida leadership has been captured or killed. Now we are realizing the problem of Iran’s funding and supplying Democrats are trying to hamstring us there.

Are Democrats for us or against us???

The experts disagree – the strategy/plan issued by the WH calls the job finished when Iraq can stand on it’s own and provide security on it’s own. That IS subjective. Shoot – we have violence in our own streets. It’s not a matter of whether or not there will or won’t be violence. It’s a matter of whether or not a humanitarian crisis will ensue because the terrorists will overwhelm the security forces and take over the government and cleansing Iraq of those who weren’t with them.

If you disagree and think there won’t be a humanitarian crisis than so be it. I accept that you disagree. But if you are wrong and we follow your advice (Democrats advice) they/you need to be prepared to admit pulling out was premature and irresponsible. It is a good thing we have a leader (a leader who doesn’t stick his wet finger in the wind) who consistently talks about finishing and he is trying to keep America RESPONSIBLE.

jpe wrote, “when we should be exclusively hunting down al-Qaeda. Let the Iraqis protect the Iraqis.”

I love reading uninformed liberal positions on things as bumper sticker slogans. This week the act is as if Al Qaida in Iraq all have certain color shirts with the writing “I’m in Al Qaida”. Everyone else has a shirt that says, “if you even look at me Congress will hold you responsible for going against the new AUMF – so don’t look at me – I said don’t – oh I saw you looking”.

jpe wrote, “In other day and age, this would have been considered a conservative position.”

In another day and age it was 9/10.

Being responsible is not about name calling it’s about doing the right thing like we did for Japan and Germany after WW2.