What’s even further saddening is that the Democrats just don’t get it…they attribute 9/11 attacks ONLY to terrorists holed up in Pakistan. Therefore, wouldn’t it be safe to conclude that if we rooted all the terrorists from their safe havens in the Pakistan frontier the Democrats would think the war on terror would be over.

My point is this: they don’t understand that “jihadists” in Iraq and Pakistan are one and same. Whether or not these particular fanatics in Iraq were directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks is immaterial. What matters is that the terrorists in Iraq and Pakistan are the same. They adhere to the same ideology and vow allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

While I think capturing bin Laden would be a nice PR move for this country, I don’t think it will have much bearing on the terror war.

Yet, it is this misguided belief that 1.) we pull out of Iraq and 2.) destroy al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and suddeny the war is over…

Incorrect and sad…

Again, great post, my friend!!!!

“What? President Obama is advocating a strike on a country that never attacked us? A pre-emptive attack?!”

“Ohhhh, I see, President Obama wants Americans to fight in Pakistan because there’s a handful of Al Queda there, but they weren’t there until the US invaded Afghanistan”

Maybe President Obama should get the UN’s permission? Anyone think the UN would authorize a pre-emptive strike on a country armed with nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, sure! The French, Chinese, and Russians are all about that without a doubt, and the resolve of the British people would surely back such a nuclear confrontation. Maybe we could count on “our allies” to help in the airstrikes and/or invasion of the jihadi-packed, nuclear-armed nation?

All of the arguments against the war in Iraq will literally handcuff any future Democratic President against fighting any war, addressing any threat, and will take away (if not gone already) America’s best defense: deterrence.

Good luck Dems.

Me, I think Fred Thompson’s gonna come in and clean house, but that could just be a pipedream. Lacking that, Sen Clinton’s gonna take the Democratic Party nomination, and if she takes the White House, it’s gonna be as funny as the best Greek Comedy. We’ve seen how well women statespersons (ie Madelline Albright) do in dealing with Islamic leaders. Given the Senator’s lack of political courage, and her ability to bend like a reed to any and all popularity polls, it’s clear no foreign leader’s gonna care a bit about what she says. Any tough talk she tosses will be met by foreign leaders laughing, and the only way to prevent that is for her to demonstrate her willingness to use American military might…something that will be political suicide for her.

Me, I can wait to hear a President Clinton talk about why she wants to pre-emptively attack Iran based on limited intelligence and claims of ties to terror there. Sure, we all know they’re making nukes (spending hundreds of billions to enrich uranium, but not a single nuclear power plant being built let alone an energy grid), but would a Pres Clinton or a Pres Obama be willing to walk the walk or just talk the talk? We all know it’s the latter.