No, that would be treason!

I'm opposed to Bush because he is losing the war not because he is a Republican and I also oppose the Democratic proposals to withdraw. But if Bush is just going to continue with "stay the course" that essentially means stretching the losing out over two more years so he can turn the mess over to someone else I'm not sure the democrats proposals are not the better alternative.

But back to my original point. When is it going
to be more important to you guys to be American rather than Republicans and start demanding that this Administration improve its performance rather then blaming democrats for the war that the this republican administration seems to be doing a fine job of losing all by itself.

Talking Dog listens to George Lakoff: “We also have to get a handle on definitions. You can’t have a “war on terror”. Terror is an emotion– it is not an army who fights to control territory– the definition of a part...

It seem that the only thing some understand is that which aids and helps the "Hate" to be spread about so that some can say that "I told you so".

Little do they know that this "hate" is deteriorating the fabric of our nation and making us a weaker nation and a vulnerable nation. I wonder if it is just plain stupidity or very intentional. Either way, These people are aiding and abetting our enemies by lifting their morale and making them bolder.

When the chips are down, will that make them "see the light" or will they continue their "Hate" in an effort to gain control of the country they are doing their level best to "Tear down".

It's almost like they have a "death wish" and want to take everybody down with them because they can not take a defeat at the polls like every American is bound by conscience and patriotism to do.

When theses "Bush Haters" finally understand what the stakes are, It may be "To Late".

Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.

What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.

Exactly so. And where would Musharraf have gotten that kind of a message? From Howard Dean. John Murtha. John Kerry. And let's not forget the nod banks who threw Joe Lieberman out of his seat or tried to, apparently unsuccessfully.

Clearly Pakistan is among those getting a message that Anderson has not.

Nice bluster, guys. I understand.

If you truly understood, you wouldn't call it bluster. Then again, you wouldn't be a Democrat, either.

Well put.
Agreement.

Bithead, I’ve asked you for examples where Democratic opposition interfered with the White House’s wishes for the prosecution of the Iraq war.

And I consider the question to be ridiculous for anyone who has not been in a cave for the last five years.

Are you really expecting us to believe that the long line of Democrats standing up in opposition to every time George W. Bush draws a breath, particularly with regards to the Iraq war, has been totally ineffective in slowing down his prosecution of that war and for that matter his other policies as well? Come on.

If you really think that the Democrats have been so totally ineffective, one wonders why you continue to support them.

What it boils down to is:

By spewing their hate, the Democrats have caused a division in our country that is contrary to that of being a loyal American. If the Democrats dis-loyalty is traitorous, then as the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits" ?

Rather than supply any, you now want *me* to provide examples of Republican opposition to the conduct of WW2. Which IIRC certainly existed, but if you can't come up with any examples on the matter actually at hand, you'll forgive me if I don't spend my time researching a 60-year-old war.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was indeed supported by a majority of Congressional Democrats (largely on the strength of bad intel touted by the White House, but that is another story). What have those Dems done since then that has hindered the President? What would the White House like to have done that it's been kept from doing by Democratic opposition?

This has been Bush's war from the get-go. Period.

Bithead, I will admit that I am having a bit of difficulty following your logic.

Nice of you.

I don’t know how to answer your questions, and I don’t see how they relate to anything I have said in this thread.

Oh, I think you do. I suspect you're just not very happy about the conclusions that you would be forced to draw, were you to acknowledge the implications of my questions.

But let's try it this way;

The situation that Israel finds itself in, in southern Lebanon is fairly but not totally unique in terms of history. They find themselves trying to control a "state within a state". Strictly speaking, this cannot be considered a war against Lebanon, unless you are going to stipulate that Lebanon is Hezbollah. Somehow I doubt many people are willing to so stipulate, yourself included.

The connection is rather simple, though I'm not surprised you haven't seen it. You have on several occasions, this one being the most recent, late an awful lot of weight by their being "no official declaration of war by Congress", in your anti-Iraq war arguemnts . But, clearly, not unlike like Israel's actions in Southern Lebenon, our military action was not against the Iraqi people, per se' but rather the renegade claiming to run the place.

Apparently that's a line that you're having trouble drawing.

So, I ask again: Tell us; Whom would we have declared war against?

And, of course, all of this ignores the fact that the president's actions have in fact been authorized by Congress.