Partners in Peace

Millions going to the polls in Iraq demonstrated the truth of Joe Lieberman's statement:

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election today, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas. Several explosions rocked Baghdad throughout the day, but the level of violence was low.

The heavy participation by the Sunnis, who had shunned balloting last January, bolstered U.S. hopes of calming the insurgency enough to begin withdrawing troops next year.

What a great, great day for democracy!

Estimates that 11 million of the country's 15 million registered voters took part in the election are testament to that.

President Bush said:

I want to congratulate the Iraqi citizens for being courageous and in defying the terrorists and refusing to be cowed into not voting. I believe freedom is universal. I believe the Iraqi citizen cares just as much about freedom and living a free life as the American citizen does.

Secondly, I want to thank our embassy for doing such good work there and working with the Iraqi citizens to get this vote off. And I want to thank the international community for participating in these elections. This is a major step forward in achieving our objective, which is an ally -- having a democratic Iraq, a country able to sustain itself and defend itself, a country that will be an ally in the war on terror, and a country which will send such a powerful example to others in the region, whether they live in Iran or Syria, for example.

I've assured these good Iraqi citizens that the United States will stay with them and complete this -- complete this job. They've expressed concern about listening to the commentary that we'll leave before the job is done -- they don't have to worry. We're doing the right thing. And we've got partners in peace with the Iraqi citizens.

I, too, congratulate the Iraqi people for standing up to the terrorists by daring to vote, in spite of threats by these enemies of peace and freedom.

It's a shame that the radical Left couldn't celebrate the successful election. It's unfortunate that they couldn't take pride in the freedom that our troops have brought to an oppressed people.

What did the Dems have to say about the election?

Well, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer chose to use the occasion to hold a press conference calling on Bush to address the Valerie Plame case.

Talk about clueless! It's so pathetic that I actually feel a little sorry for them.

What did the lib media have to say?

The Washington Post didn't go so far as to ignore the Iraqi election. Instead, Robin Wright wrote a piece that dismissed the significance of the day.

Again, it's pathetic!

While Iraqis were dancing in the streets, she writes about the "sobering reality":

For President Bush, the strong turnout for Iraq's election yesterday may represent the best day since the fall of Baghdad 32 months ago because all major factions participated in the political process, according to U.S. and Middle East analysts. But the sobering reality, they added, is that the vote by itself did not resolve Iraq's lingering political disputes.

After weeks of an increasingly divisive debate at home that helped sink the president's approval rating to an all-time low, the Bush administration appeared buoyed by the throngs at the polls and the low violence. Flanked in the Oval Office by six young Iraqis, all with a purple-stained finger signifying they had voted, Bush called the election a "major milestone" on the road to democracy.

...[Anthony H. Cordesman, a Persian Gulf military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,] said the vote is not the long-awaited turning point but rather a trigger for launching a new political process next year that will include amending a constitution. That, he said, will better determine whether Iraq has a chance of emerging out of turmoil.

One looming danger is that the most dedicated wings of the insurgency, the foreign fighters and Islamic extremists, may only become more determined or vicious. "The steady grind of this guerrilla war is going to go on. The elections are not relevant to it, and that's what is going to matter to the American people," warned Juan R.I. Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan.

Others acknowledged the election's success but said it came too late. "It's the best moment since Baghdad fell . . . but it's at least 18 months late," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department Iraq policy planning expert now at Lehigh University. "The fall of Saddam Hussein was a moment. This is just a moment of relief."

Although Democrats expressed hope that the election marked the beginning of a healing process in Iraq, some called for it to be made a catalyst for policy adjustments.

In a letter to the White House, 26 House Democrats -- including the minority whip and nine members of the Armed Services Committee -- outlined four principles that they said should guide U.S. policy after the election, including a significant drawdown of U.S. troops in the next 12 months and the transfer of key nation-building responsibilities to Iraq's neighbors and the international community.

Only the Dems could take such an incredible event as the overwhelmingly successful Iraqi election and turn it into a defeat, drowning in pessimism.

Of course, one could predict that the libs would disgracefully spin the Iraqi citizens' brave defiance by transforming their achievement into a negative, and in the process, belittle the historic milestone.

Truly pathetic.

Speaking of pathetic, what was John Murtha's take?

"An election's fine. I hope that a big percentage of people do vote," Murtha said. "But that's not going to change the insurgency. When we get out of there, that's going to be the turning point."

By early next year, Murtha predicted of the Bush administration, "I think they'll say the Iraqis are well trained, and they'll say we can redeploy. I think they saw that after the election, things would quiet down.

"The pressure from the public, the cost of this in personnel, in people and in money, is just too much for them to bear," Murtha said.

Those sad, miserable Dems.

PATHETIC.

Saddam Loses in Landslide

No need to wait for exit polls. The results of Iraq's election are in:

Saddam lost.

The Iraqi people won.



From the Washington Post:

It was a day of great hope for hundreds of Iraqis -- some of whom traveled hundreds of miles -- as they cast ballots at the Best Western Tysons Westpark, the only polling place in the Northeast.

Voting will continue through tomorrow locally and at seven other polling places nationwide. Organizers predict that tens of thousands of the 240,000 eligible Iraqi voters in the United States will help select members of Iraq's new government this week.

...Heymin Abdul, 27, was among thousands of Kurds who moved to the United States in 1997.

Hussein's forces "have been killing us" in Iraq, said Abdul, who settled in Harrisonburg, Va. "Torturing us. They did anything to try to destroy the Kurdish. We thank God for the U.S.A. that we're successful now . . . to rebuild our country and stay in peace."

Karim Hama, 31, also traveled from his home in Harrisonburg to take part in the election, hoping to have a hand in helping Iraq build a democracy.

"We've come here to make sure what happened in [Iraq's] past never happens again," Hama said through a translator.

Ayad Alsaidi, 39, of Fairfax was sporting four small Iraqi flags attached to his head with an Ace bandage.

"It comes from my heart," said Alsaidi, who wore a sign around his neck that read "freedom yes." "I'd like to thank the U.S.A. for giving freedom to my country. That's why I'm here today. . . . I want Iraq to be a wonderful place. No more problems."

Several women arrived at the polls dressed in sequined gowns that they said are traditional Kurdish clothes worn during times of celebration.

Kawsrat Mahmoud, 21, wore a long, blue, spangled dress with a matching head scarf. It's the same dress she wore to the polls in January when Iraqi immigrants were offered their first chance to vote in generations.

"I feel like I'm being born again," said Mahmoud, who immigrated to Fairfax from the Kurdistan region in 2001.

These Iraqi voters in the U.S. proudly participated in the elections of a free Iraq. They should be proud. It is a historic election.

Today in Iraq, the polls are open. Brave Iraqis are ignoring threats of violence and voting. In some cases at great personal risk, they are engaging in a process that all too many Americans take for granted--casting votes to determine the makeup of their government.

This is a glorious day for the Iraqi people and all free people of the world. It's a victory over tyranny and terrorism.

Al Jazeera writes:

Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Islamist groups have vowed to disrupt the vote but their statements have been more muted in tone than in January, and the run-up to the election has, by Iraq's standards, been calm.

Despite voters having to walk to vote because of security restrictions, turnout is expected to be high - perhaps 70% to 80% compared with 59% in January and 64% in October's referendum on a new constitution.

...At the Arab Banner primary school in the predominantly Shia downtown district of Karradah, Saleh Hadi, a 71-year-old car mechanic who is married with eight children said that "this is what Iraqis want. Democracy, God willing, glory and peace".

Thanks to the vision of President Bush and the leaders of our coalition partners, and thanks to the resolve and bravery of our troops, Iraq is no longer held hostage by Saddam Hussein.

As President Bush said yesterday, "[W]e're helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous and an example for the broader Middle East."

American troops, coalition troops, and Iraqi troops deserve our gratitude and praise for taking the dream of democracy and helping to make it a reality for the Iraqis. Through their sacrifice, they have made our world safer.

Did Saddam get an absentee ballot?

He probably would boycott the election anyway, unless he could cast a vote for himself as a write-in candidate.

No more landslide victories for Saddam.

TOOK TOOK TOOKIE -- GOODBYE

Stanley Tookie Williams poses at age 29 in the exercise yard at San Quentin, Calif., prison.


Present day Tookie

The Governor of California decided not to grant clemency to Tookie Williams.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, the founder of the murderous Crips gang who awaited execution early Tuesday in a case that stirred debate over capital punishment and the possibility of redemption on death row. Williams, 51, is set to die by injection at San Quentin State Prison after midnight for murdering four people in two 1979 holdups.

Hollywood stars and death penalty opponents mounted a campaign to save his life, making him one of the nation's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades. His supporters argued that the founder of the murderous Crips gang had made amends during more than two decades in prison by writing a memoir and children's books about the dangers of gangs.

Prosecutors and victims' advocates contended Williams was undeserving of clemency from the governor because he did not own up to his crimes and refused to inform on fellow gang members. They also argued that the Crips gang that Williams co-founded in Los Angeles in 1971 is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.

Williams stands to become the 12th California condemned inmate executed since lawmakers reinstated the death penalty in 1977 after a brief hiatus.

Williams was condemned in 1981 for gunning down a clerk in a convenience store holdup and a mother, father and daughter in a motel robbery weeks later. Williams claimed he was innocent.

When it comes to the death penalty, I am a hypocrite.

First, I am against the death penalty. I don't think the government should execute people.

That said, and here comes the hypocritical part, if a loved one of mine was murdered, I would want the person responsible to receive the death penalty. I would not want that person to live to see another sunrise.

I try to be consistent in terms of upholding the sanctity of life.

Although there is a dramatic difference between killing innocent life, (like slaughtering the unborn, or sentencing a disabled individual, such as Terri Schiavo, to death by starvation and dehydration), and executing a murderer, someone with blood on his hands, I still can't support the death penalty -- in theory.

It is wrong to take a life for a life.

However, when I take the matter out of the abstract and think of it in concrete terms, when I think of someone I love being taken away from me, I would want the killer dead.

Since I've never been in that position, I can't be certain; but I doubt that I could muster the Godliness it would take to forgive.

So, I think the death penalty should be abolished; yet I would want it enforced if my loved one was murdered.

I'm a hypocrite.

More than any other moral issue, I struggle with the death penalty. I know what stance I should take; but I know what stance I would take if I lost someone dear to me.

When it comes to the specifics of the Tookie Williams case, I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the matter, so I am limited in my comments.

I will say that I think it is a despicable affront to the memories of Tookie's victims that the Hollywood community has turned the man into a saint.

He wrote a few books. So what?

I guess Tookie didn't realize that being an author was a career option when he founded the Crips.

His supporters claim that Tookie is such a positive force in the effort to direct young people away from gangs that it would be a crime to silence this good man.

While I do not think Tookie should be executed (in theory), I cannot stand his canonization by the Left. He's not a hero. In all likelihood, he directly and indirectly destroyed many more lives than he could ever hope to save.

Perhaps the ultimate, best message that Tookie can hope to send to the young people who are gang members or those contemplating joining a gang will be made at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday.

Choices have consequences.


The New York Times is already mourning the loss of Tookie.

Sorry to Burst Your Bubble...

"Bush's World-The Isolated President: Can He Change?"

What a goofy article! Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe get the credit for this one.

Newsweek has decided that "Bush may be the most isolated president in modern history, at least since the late-stage Richard Nixon. It's not that he is a socially awkward loner or a paranoid. He can charm and joke like the frat president he was. Still, beneath a hail-fellow manner, Bush has a defensive edge, a don't-tread-on-me prickliness."

How lame!

It's page after page of psychobabble, amateur analysis, and unnamed sources.

In typical Newsweek style, its sources are shadowy figures. As usual, there is a reason for the mysteriousness. Thomas and Wolffe chalk up the need to keep their sources anonymous as matters of concern for the well being of the sources. They live in fear, terrorized by a vengeful president.

Thomas and Wolffe freely generalize, "A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president..."

ALL WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS IN GENERAL REFUSE TO BE IDENTIFIED FOR FEAR OF ANTAGONIZING THE PRESIDENT.

That's quite a statement.

First, using a word like "all" is not a good idea. It has the ring of "But Mom...everybody is going. Please, can I go, too?"

Second, have "all" the officials really confided in Thomas and Wolffe, and confessed to them that they are afraid of Bush?

That seems possible if they only speak to two or three officials. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

The article compares Bush's style with other presidents. Not surprisingly, Bush is depicted negatively in comparison with the heroes of the past.

The piece ends with a nasty swipe at the President not being the type of person to do the right thing.

True mandates for hard choices come from reaching out and compromising. Bush's father understood that. Breaking his own "read my lips" promise at the 1988 Republican convention, he raised taxes in 1991 as part of a fiscal-reform package that was essential to the 1990s economic boom. The tax hike probably cost the senior Bush a second term in 1992. But it was the right thing to do. It's very unlikely the son would do the same.

I don't find this article's historical references intriguing. It's filled with bizarre conjecture, sort of in the style of Bob Woodward.

I don't think it offers anything significant to the reader other than yet more proof that Newsweek is deeply invested in the anti-Bush agenda.

The irony is that Thomas and Wolffe may really be the ones living in a very insular world.

Can they change?

________________________________

UPDATE: President Bush responds. Bubble is a figment of Newsweek's imaginative reporters. (Emphasis on "imaginative.")

If It's Sunday, It's Anti-Bush Spin

I used to think that Tim Russert was a competent interviewer. Now, I think he's a partisan hack.

In my view, he has managed to turn Meet the Press into a propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee.

Although Russert has always been easier on Dems than on Republicans, at one time he was more balanced in his questioning. That's changed. Russert has taken on the role of an anti-Bush Administration activist.

On today's program, Russert directed a Bush-bash fest with Bill Clinton legacy spinmeister Madeleine Albright and useful tool Lindsey Graham.

First, it's ridiculous to believe that a RINO like Graham was booked as a guest to speak in support of the Bush Administration.

It seemed that when Graham wasn't attacking Bush and the White House, he was backpedaling and apologizing for offering support to the President in the past.

Russert graciously set Albright up to say: Bush did a miserable job in Iraq; Bush misled the country with faulty intelligence in making the case for war; Bush and Cheney support torture; and Republicans have poisoned the political climate, with the RNC's White Flag ad as a case in point.

For the most part, Graham agreed with Albright on every point. Occasionally, he would present an opposing view. This happened when Albright would say that she agreed completely with what Graham had just said. It was as if a little bell would go off in Graham's head, signaling that he had been too anti-Bush Administration in his remarks. Only then would he criticize the Dems.

For example, Russert showed an edited bit of the RNC's "Retreat and Defeat" ad. Graham said that the ad should be pulled. He ran down the list of Dems who have claimed our troops have not made progress in Iraq and called for retreat. Graham then went on to characterize them as patriots.

Albright jumped in to say that she was in complete agreement with Graham, that the attack methods being used by the Republicans are shameful. At that point, the bell went off for Graham. He then tacked on that the Dems are not blameless. He said that Dems haven't helped matters by calling the President a liar.

Overall, Graham consistently gave far too little, far too late. Throughout his appearance, his defense of the President was extremely limp.

Graham also went off on the torture issue, insisting that the U.S. must stop the torturing of prisoners.

(By the way, does the U.S. have a meat grinder for human flesh at any of its terrorist detention facilities? As a matter of policy, does the U.S. cut off heads, cut off limbs, cut out tongues, or gouge out eyes?

The term "torture" is bandied about, but it's not clearly defined. Do U.S. military personnel routinely practice "torture" as the Dems and RINOs claim?)

The assumption was that currently the U.S. regularly engages in torture tactics. No challenge of that assumption was made. For instance, there was no one to point out the reasoning behind not wanting to limit what approach can be used when dealing with a terrorist under the ticking bomb scenario, something that even John McCain has acknowledged would demand tough measures.

Too bad Dick Durbin wasn't there to add some spice to the discussion by calling Americans the keepers of gulags.

I think for a moment Albright thought she would not have to answer for statements she made in 1998 about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.

Russert did read a quote from Albright's book. It rather weakly stated that she believed Iraq was a danger to the U.S. Albright quickly covered that by saying the Clinton Administration effectively dealt with the Iraq problem by sanctions and strategic bombing.

Naturally, Russert did not challenge her, and neither did Graham.

Albright did not have to account for her hawkish stance in 1998 and the litany of remarks she made back then about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction.

On February 18, 1998, at a town hall meeting at Ohio State, Albright said:

For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.

In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people.

...First of all, I'd like to repeat and say that the United States does not challenge Iraq's territorial integrity, nor do we want to see the Iraqi people suffer any further. Our problem, and the world's problem, is with Iraq's leaders. Today those leaders have a choice: they can allow UN inspections to proceed on the world's terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours.

At the same forum, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen also presented a strong case for military action against Iraq.

From the meeting's transcript:

Saddam Hussein, as Secretary Albright has indicated, has developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people, as well as Iran. I have a picture, which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here is a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child, killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call "Madonna and Child, Saddam Hussein Style."

(Shouting.)

Now, the United Nations believes that he still has very large quantities of VX. VX is a substance, a nerve agent, which is so deadly that a single drop can kill you within a couple of minutes. Anthrax is a biological agent that kills people within five to seven hours seven days, rather, after they breathe an amount the size of a single dust particle. If you were to take a five- pound bag of anthrax, properly dispersed, it would kill half the population of Columbus, Ohio.

Now, at the time of 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, he had also loaded chemical and biological weapons into artillery shells, missile warheads as well. He was working on a missile that would have a range of nearly 2,000 miles. That means it could travel all the way from Baghdad to as far as Paris, and perhaps other capitals in Europe, and one day, perhaps, even to the United States. He has fired these missiles against four of his neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran and Israel.

And because of the threats posed by Saddam and his deadly arsenal, the United Nations insisted that he eliminate all of these weapons of mass destruction following the Gulf War.

...But Saddam has delayed; he has duped; he has deceived the inspectors from the very first day on the job. I have another chart which shows exactly what I'm talking about. From the very beginning, he declared he had not offensive biological weapons programs. Then, when confronted with evidence following the defection of his son-in-law, he admitted they had produced more than 2100 gallons of anthrax. The UN inspectors fear that he may have produced as much as three times that amount.

...These inspectors, again, they've done a good job, but their work isn't over; and that's why we need them back on the ground, searching for these deadly weapons that Saddam has used in the past and could use again in the future. We hope that Iraq will agree to let the inspectors do their work, but if Saddam refuses, we're prepared to use military force to achieve that which he will not allow the inspectors
to do.

Our military goal would be to deliver a serious blow that would significantly diminish Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, the threat, and reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors.

Why didn't Graham call Albright on her effort to rewrite history and to distance herself from the reality of the Clinton Administration's position on Iraq?

Perhaps he hadn't had his morning coffee and wasn't up for the fight. Maybe he's a spineless RINO and accordingly has no interest in speaking up for the President or his party. It's possible that Graham was coached by John McCain to let Albright and Russert deliver as many blows to Bush as possible, and Graham was willing to take the fall.

I don't know why Graham chose to aid Russert in his anti-Bush Administration campaign. In any case, Graham helped the Dems in their drive to hurt Bush's credibility.

Why did Russert give Albright the opportunity to trash the current Administration without holding her accountable for her words and actions during her tenure as the Secretary of State?

That's simple. He's a partisan hack.

Just days away from the elections in Iraq, this is all very disheartening to me.

As Joe Lieberman has said, it would be a colossal mistake to "seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Apparently, Russert, Albright, and Graham are eager to make that colossal mistake.

As Samuel Johnson said in The Idler, 1758, "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."



Let's be clear. Russert is not an objective journalist. He has a horse in this race and it's definitely not Bush.

Sometimes, it seems that it's not America.

SHUT UP

I must give credit where credit is due.

Earl Pomeroy, a Dem, has a message for Dr. Dean -- "SHUT UP."

Of course, it's a self-serving, tactical move on Pomeroy's part. Nonetheless, it's good to hear a Dem tell the DNC chairman to zip it.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.

On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.

If only Dr. Dean were capable of complying with Pomeroy's simple request.

Sadly, he's not. He'll continue to undermine the War on Terror by making reckless, demoralizing statements that echo around globe.

...Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.

"He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats," Pomeroy said. "As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."

It would appear that Dean is appealing to the nuts that populate the radical Left rather than focusing on the nuts and bolts of campaigns.

Dean backtracked on his statements somewhat Thursday, saying his assertion that the United States cannot win the war was reported "a little out of context," and that Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.

Dean is in CYA mode. His words weren't taken out of context at all. He probably wishes they were, but they were not.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on Pomeroy's remarks.

Why is it that the DNC deems a Dem with sensible views persona non grata?

I suspect it's because these misfits make the rest of the party look stark, raving mad.

...Pomeroy, who has visited Iraq three times, said he believes the United States must stay in the country for now to achieve progress on national security, the creation of a stable government and the establishment of a functioning economy.

Pomeroy is on board with the President's Plan for Victory. That's probably a smart place for him to be, given he represents Red State North Dakota.

WHITE FLAG DEMOCRATS

For weeks, the Dems persistently pounded away to get out their message -- the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq. With the exception of just a handful of Dems, they have been highly critical of Bush, his handling of the war, the mission itself, and in John Kerry's case, the troops.

In response, the GOP unveiled a new ad today.

Actually, the radical Left Dems should be very happy with all of it, except the very end. It conveys the exact same message that they have been putting out incessantly. For the most part, the ad is a simple reiteration of what the Dems have been saying.




It begins with these words written on the screen:

Democrats Have A Plan For Iraq:

Retreat and Defeat

Then, the statements of three Dems are shown. The viewer can watch and hear them speak about Iraq. There's no tricky editing, just unaltered clips.

Howard Dean:

The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. (San Antonio's WOAI's Website, www.woai.com, Accessed 12/5/05)

Barbara Boxer:

So there’s no specific timeframe but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections December 15th. (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/4/05)

John Kerry:

There is no reason Bob that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, you know, women. (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 12/4/05)

Their voices are followed by these words:

Our Country Is At War

Our Soldiers Are Watching

And Our Enemies Are Too

Message To Democrats:

Retreat And Defeat Is Not An Option

The final line is the ONLY point that differs from the Dem party line.

American retreat and defeat is what the Dems have been insisting is the inevitable outcome for the war in Iraq. Most Dems are on the record saying that we must withdraw our troops, that conditions are worse in Iraq because the U.S. deposed Saddam Hussein, and that American actions in the Middle East have created more terrorists.

In effect, most Dems and their lib media mouthpieces chant that the mission in Iraq is a mistake, that it is not a noble cause, and that our troops have made little to no progress in Iraq. That is not a distortion of their stance. That is a summary of their own words.

Now, when the Republicans are confronting the Dems with the reality of their own words, they are doing their best to spin their way out of their retreatist, defeatist strategy.

From the DNC website:

Washington, DC - This morning, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean appeared on CNN's "American Morning" to discuss how we can win in Iraq, and win the War on Terror and renewed his critique on the President's failure to have a plan for success.

Below are excerpts from Governor Dean's comments:

"We can and have to win the War on Terror."

"We can only win the war -- which we have to win -- if we change our strategy dramatically. ...if we want to win the war on terror we cannot pursue the failed strategy we've pursued..."

"I'm not as worried about the President's credibility as I am about the lives of brave American soldiers giving their lives and coming back wounded."

"We need to redeploy our troops and stop making our troops the target over there."

"We are for the troops. We're going to stand up for these troops. They deserve better support than they are getting."

"Not only do most Democrats, most Republican Senators now believe the 2006 has to be a transition year. ...We want to serve our troops better. We believe they deserve better. We want to serve our people better and we want to win the war on terror. And we want to do it smart because we can't do it the way we're doing it now."

Oh, poor dear Dr. Dean has been forced to "clarify" his comment that the "idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," meaning he must act as if he never said it.

And of course, David Wade, the spokesman for the befuddled Kerry, came out swinging with schoolyard bully insults rather than actually explaining why Kerry referred to American troops as "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

Instead, Wade preferred to deflect from Kerry's disgusting words by attacking RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Rush Limbaugh:

Ken Mehlman's filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft-dodging doughnut-eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common. Neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe.

Yes, the Dems are on defense now.

They had smelled blood in the water. They believed that Bush was so weak that they could easily finish him off. They orchestrated an all-out assault. The Dems thought that Americans had turned against Bush and the Iraq war, so they kept pushing the surrender strategy.

That was their miscalculation.

The Dems took their cues from polls and made judgments based on approval ratings and public opinion statistics. They chose to let numbers and margins of error guide them rather than values and principles.

As a result, the Dem strategy backfired.

Americans care about the country. We want victory in Iraq. The Dems, on the other hand, care about themselves. They want power.

For Dean and Boxer and Kerry, victory means defeating Republicans.

For Americans, victory means defeating tyranny and terrorism.

The Dems just don't understand what Americans value.

NO RETREAT. NO SURRENDER.