You must be farsighted.
" The best thing for the United States would be for the Democratic party to come back into power.
A really embarrassing failure in Iraq would tip next years election toward the Democrats.
Therefore, a failure in Iraq would be good for the USA."
I disagree with the initial premise. The initial premise should be something like:
We need to be in power, and the democrat party is the most easily manipulated vehicle to achieve that purpose.
Well, this guy is obviously not a Freeper.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn't that Democrats are ignorant, it's just that they know so many things that aren't true.
Most Democrats are just ignorant of basic facts about history and economics. And they have very poor critical thinking skills. But the DemoRat "leadership" is anti-American. They resemble Mao Tse-tung, in that they will say or do anything to obtain political power, even if it undermines our troops, our economy, the U.S. Constitution, and our freedom. They are immoral socialists.
Many Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq!
Oh for pete's sake, EVERYBODY knows this. It really isn't a revelation. VIETNAM! WATERGATE! VIETNAM! WUAGMIRE! These are the things the democrats live for. They'd probably be happy to have the race riots of the 60s all over again too. They have NO PLAN and need a crisis to regain power.
Liberals are "plagued" by childhood-acquired narcissism. They are obsessed with getting even with those who they believe "oppress" them. They do not think about country. In fact, they find it hard to think beyond their next "trip", or their next form of instant gratification.
Since they really do not think about others, is it not surprising that they cannot fathom what relates to the future security of the nation, of our children and grandchildren-- our neighbors? People who actually DO care about others, instinctively think in terms of protecting them. And that includes fighting for them, if necessary.
This is nature.
Liberals are an aberration of nature.
I'm amazed that it took this guy so long to arrive at this obvious conclusion.
It's not really the Democrat voters whose opinions are being reflected here. It is the Democrat position writers. The Democrat position writers are completely under the control of a particular strain of academic and journalistic thinking that abhors naked power.
The New York Times editorial page is the home base of this strain of thinking.
When the United States uses, or even hints at the use, of naked power, the "naked power phobics" go ballistic. The defeat of the Republicans and the defeat of the U.S. Military both look like necessary steps in the progress of man to them. In their view, mankind can not move forward into a new and better age until we all learn that power can not make the world a better place.
This is a pretty attractive position to many. Indeed it can seem to be the core principle of the New Testament and many Christians take this position.
For the rest of us, who appreciate the police who help us keep criminals at bay and who wish to defend our nation and our lifestyle, this position seems extreme. Power often defends the good and stands in the way of evil.
God help us in this debate. This isn't the end of the discussion, though.
Many of us cannot be comfortable in a country run by the New York Times rather than by the voters, however well informed the New York Times may be. The Democrats are run by the New York Times. Can we be comfortable with a Democrat government?