Free Republic

Coleen Rowley has penned a piece over at the Huffington Post entitled “Demagoguery won’t keep us safe.” It is “classic” in terms of characterizing the Anti-war, Liberal, and Democratic stance in the war on terror. Firstly, while it is extremely critical of the current policies that are in use in the war on terror, it fails to offer a single alternative course of action. Anyone can be a critic, but to be a constructive critic requires that at a minimum, a plan to replace that which is in use. Secondly, the accusation that the effort that is in place is...

Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war. The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections because what is important for national security might also help Republicans, and that must be avoided at all costs. Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind eye to today's terrorists like many did to yesterday's Nazis....

On Iraq, the Democrats are the party of defeat. That's not a partisan smear, but a fact. The further we slide toward defeat, the higher the Democrats' political fortunes rise. To the extent they offer any clear policy alternative for Iraq, it is either — depending on your point of view — to admit, or to guarantee, defeat with a rapid drawdown of American troops. So, their political self-interest objectively coincides with a defeat, and the kind of pullout endorsed at times by high-profile leaders in the party would hasten it. The Democrats don't offer stirring rhetoric about the need...

As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran; at the very moment Iraq’s democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents —at this critical moment...

What part of the war on terrorism do they support? Ann Coulter posted: August 23, 2006 6:23 p.m. Eastern © 2006 This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security. To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror – absolutely in favor of that war – they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands...