Having captured both houses of Congress by claiming the GOP has already lost the war, the Democrats are determined to declare defeat and go home.
It's a bit like the AP running phoney stories supplied to their stringers by al Qaeda and NBC news declaring that from now on they will refer to the civil war in Iraq, despite the fact that most military observers say the situation is well short of an actual, you know, civil war.
You'd almost think they don't take the consequences of a U.S. military failure in Iraq seriously.
It's almost like they are traitorous nihillists who hate Western Civilisation and will align with anyone to help them destroy it. Time to deal with the fifth column that is the Left!
Posted at 2006-11-28 17:54:17 [PermaLink]"You'd almost think they don't take the consequences of a U.S. military failure in Iraq seriously."
I'd attribute that to a combination of the complete absence of any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, and the obsession of so many in the Democratic Party and the old media to bring about the humiliation of Bush and his administration. The former (an absence of terrorist attacks) has given the Democrats and their media proxies a false sense of security that they can welcome, indeed hope for a debacle in Iraq, without paying any price on the security front.
In relation to Bruce Rolston's blog post, this has me puzzled:
"Which is, of course, what Shinseki said, and what the U.S. didn't do. By disdaining foreign military assistance, by taking their time on Iraqi military training, by disbanding the Iraqi army wholesale, by never having more than 180,000 foreign troops in country for the first couple years, that lid came right off."
What " foreign military assistance " was disdained by the U.S., either for the invasion itself or the immediate aftermath? It seems to me that the issue on the eve of invasion wasn't rejection slips for countries wanting to contribute troops, but rather the media and governments opposed to regime change playing up the refusal of many countries to take part in the removal of Saddam. My recollection is that those coalition nations not participating in the invasion had their troops in place within fairly short order after Saddam was toppled, in any case, long before the insurgency kicked into overdrive.