BTTT
Right, and it's completely disingenuous. If/once we left Iraq, the goalposts would be moved and Afghanistan would be the new "disaster" that required us to "redeploy".
In fact, the only reason most (D) politicians supported the Afghanistan invasion in the first place was because they perceived the political winds to be blowing so strongly that some military action was needed. They thought that giving a thumbs-up to Afghanistan would be enough of a bone to throw at the American people that no other military action would follow. That's part of why they threw such a hissy fit about Iraq.
Thank you Jonah, I was wondering why the Eisenhower reference rang so untrue. If Democrats are calling on us to pull an Eisenhower, it means leaving our troups on the border for sixty years while the new nutjob rulers develop nuclear weapons.
Webb should be beat over the head with this till he bleads. The Korean DMZ was no solution at all.
Good article- We absolutely MUST fight or lose, and yet the mainstream media seems hell bent on us losing htis war and on the Iraqis suffering complete breakdown.
The following link does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com
Actually, libs only act out of self interest...they expect that no one else should be allowed to...and certainly not America.
There is "we" and "they" and they consider America to be "they."
"Then, when the president mentioned ending genocide in Darfur, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party leaped to their feet."
So then, by the dems very own standards (genocide), can't we conclude that Iraq was a humanitarian crisis from the git-go?
quote " In fairness, Webb is a thoughtful man who takes foreign affairs more seriously than most politicians. "endQuote
If he was thoughtful, he would support the US, and air his differences in private.