[dufekin]

Consider the pessimism of the Democrats. Amid the Iraq war, I attended an event at which a senior Democrat and Clintonite (I don't recall the name) lambasted the President for his Iraq war policy. He predicted that American forces would languish without any supply convoys before Baghdad for two months before being forced into Saddam's gallows. 25,000 would die in combat, and the remainder would starve and run out of ammunition because of a lack of secure supply lines. Because of a lack of French forces, American forces could not succeed (presumably at an orderly surrender a la Dunkirk). The war would be unwinnable.

To make a long story short, not 25 minutes later, having returned to my apartment, I turned on Fox News and heard "Our soldiers have entered the City of Baghdad." Surrender? No. Dead? No. Fighting and very much alive. French? Certainly not. Ammunition? Plenty. Food? Sufficient. Two months of siege warfare? Only if a month was twelve minutes--which I assure you, it is not!

From that day forward, I no longer listen to Democrats and their armchair generals when it comes to military and national security pessimism.

[THJNewYorkCity]

And is Kerry on record pointing out that the British and Russians got bogged down in Afghanistan? I honestly doubt if Kerry had "the gumption", to put it as wimpishly as he clearly is, to lead a war after September 11. In fact, I think he spent whatever "courage" he had in Vietnam, and everything since reflects that. He so profoundly wants it to be September 10 not just because he likes to talk about everything or doesn't understand the threat to Western Civilization; he can't come to grips with the fact that he left a lot more behind in Vietnam than his honor and four months of his time.