[D-fendr]

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

This alone could doom her chances of being elected.

[coconutt2000]

If the Democrats had their way, we'd issue an indictment for every terrorist who attacks us, and then pray that the terrorist walks into a police station and turns himself in.

Sure... The Democrats are about as sane as King George.

[Dajjal]

jihad bump

[capitalist229]

Bush cannot say "Iraq is a staging area for the upcoming conflict with Iran".

But soon enough it will apparent for all to see.

Even Ms. Clinton.

BUMP

[Brilliant]

What she said:

"If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war."




What she meant:

"But since I was in the Senate instead, I did vote for this war."

[visitor]

bump...rto

[wai-ming]

Hillary Clinton: "If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war."

Actually, Hillary was president, or at least co-president, when the "war" started.

The "war" was started by Islamic terrorists during the first Clinton administration. Hillary's husband did nothing, and it escalated to the point where America had to act.

During the second Clinton administration (heaven forbid!), will Hillary sit idly by as Islamic extremists continue to extort and terrorize their way to greater world power? Let's hope we never have to find out.

[Gritty]

[VeritatisSplendor]

Hillary is smarter than the other Democrats, and tougher than the other Democrats -- I'd still infinitely prefer any Republican to her, but if she were elected I wouldn't expect the government to just roll over and surrender, as it would if any other Democrat were elected.

Eventually, the country is going to wake up and realize that we are at war with ISLAM itself (I don't like this conclusion, but the almost universal silent acquiescence to the jihadists' rhetoric by the "moderate" Muslims EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY SAFE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT forces me to it).

When that happens, it will rapidly become clear that we do NOT face an existential threat as we did in WWII or the Cold War. It may well take the loss of 1 or 2 U.S. cities, but once that happens it will all be over for the Muslims. The West is enervated and frivolous right now, but it retains, deep down, a bred-in-the-bone capacity for overwhelming violence. Even the wimpy liberals who had been unable to imagine that those motivated primarily by religion could possibly become powerful enough to threaten their modern lifestyle will be just as fierce when the war comes home to them.

Once the U.S.A. comes together on this, it will all be over very quickly indeed.

[Inwoodian]

I'm still waiting for the Victory in the Cold War parties, the Ticker-tape parades, the national holiday...

[reagan_fanatic]

While it is right and prudent to fear our islamist enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, we face a domestic enemy even more dangerous, as this enemy can influence public opinion through the power of a sympathetic mass media and also has within its power the ability to alter the conduct of this war or put a stop to it altogether.

This is a two-front war, not one.