[rellimpank]

=ping-

[CPOSharky]

Q: When will the anti-war weenies start saying. “I would have put the surge in place much earlier.”?

A: When it becomes obvious that AQ has been beaten.

[AU72]

Several months ago I had an arguement with a liberal friend about the surge which he thought was futile.

It took 10 minutes to get him to admit that having the surge work was a good thing, but I was exhausted by the effort.

Today he wants to change the subject. I'm not going to bother discussing politics with him anymore, life is too short.

[SueRae]

Wonderful article by VDH, per usual.

[Christian4Bush]

VDH bump

[InterceptPoint]

It gets worse, since the Democrats are not quite sure of the permanence of the upswing from Iraq. Why make that third flip just yet, and give up a Watergate or Iran-Contra-like gift, especially when a sudden spike in violence might start the entire ying and yang all over again? And if you abandon the idea that the war is lost, and that Iraq is the worst something in the history of the United States, does the attention then by default turn back again to Democratic ideology and politics — and if so, is that necessarily good news?

That is one of the summary paragraphs by Hanson. He gets it almost right but doesn't emphasize one key point.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place but their ability to switch back to the winning side if the war continues to go well is really not possible, IMHO, because they have let the George Soros's and moveon.org's of the world get their party in a stranglehold. These people want us to lose and have no interest in seeing an American victory in Iraq. Their view: that's a bad thing for the U.S., the U.N., the world and George Soros. So it is not going to just be a simple decision by Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Marxist Dems to start acting like Americans again - their key financial supporters and their activist wing will not tolerate it. You can't fool Mother Nature and the Dems can't afford to try to fool the key (and radical) element of their base, at least not in an election year.

[driftless2]

Today's Dems were virtually all defeatists on Iraq not simply just to oppose Bush, but because they're almost all defeatists on America. In short most elite Dems (the Dems who run the party) are all well far to the left. They don't believe in the America that the founding fathers created.

They are more in tune with sappy Euro leftists who still believe some sort of quasi-Marxist-Pacifist world is possible. That is why most Dems truly believe global warming is the most pressing issue of the day rather than Islamic fanatics who would like their collective heads on a platter.

[MNJohnnie]

reasonable people can differ over the prognosis

No Dr, they cannot. The only people who can differ over the prognosis are those who are rabidly ignorant of all facts about the situation in Iraq.

The Right simply has to stop granting intellectual credibility to the howling idiots on the Left. This habit of treating the completely fraudulent debating points of the Left as intellectually serious is absurd.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats are pure political opportunists, devoid of every shred of principle, honor and steadiness of purpose. Live by the polls, die by the polls. It could happen to a more deserving political party that advanced despair, desertion and defeat from its first day forward in office this year and now the tailwind of their failure to achieve it is coming back to repay them in full.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus