If the policy was to defeat the concept of radical Islam, then bush and the warmonger pro-zionist neo-cons have failed miserably. As long as bin Laden is making TV appearances, then the Vulcan foreign policy is a joke. Iraq was a side show which has gone on far longer and is much more expensive than anyone on the Right ever thought possible. That means it has failed. Peace

Liberals always seem to be able to talk the talk of freedom for all, but when it comes to actually doing it, they turn tail and run.

Also, I actually know a few people who think Iraq is worse now then before...

Liberals always seem to be able to talk the talk of freedom for all, but when it comes to actually doing it, they turn tail and run.

Also, I actually know a few people who think Iraq is worse now then before...

Will

Liberals are not turning tail and running. They are speaking out, more & more, against this corrupt administration. I agree that in the beginning, there were precious few voices of protest to be heard, but over time the roar has gotten louder & louder.

Steve

Neo-Conservatives and Zionists are also part of the smoke screen put up by the anti-war left. Neither group has any real power to speak of. The propaganda leveled against them is very simillar to that which was leveled against Jews by Nazi Germany.

Will

Whether or not Iraq is worse off or not is debateable and from what I know some of that depends on which part of Iraq one lives in. According to contractors in Iraq that I have known, parts of the country are quite peaceful and the American presence is actually welcomed. Its really a pity the main stream media does not tell us much about the success stories. Other parts, such as the area in and around Baghdad, may be worse off. This is what the msm focuses on. If the msm would present all the information available, it would be easier for the American people to reach definitive conclusions. Also, all of the problems in and around Baghdad are being caused by the terrorists and former regime loyalists. Both the terrorists and the former regime loyalists were closely allied with Saddam when he was in power. Some reports indicate more people died on an annual basis under the the Saddam regime than have died on an annual basis since he was removed. The difference is Saddam killed people quitely. Now the terrorists do it openly, for a propaganda tool and the terrorists were close to the Saddam regime when it was in power. The carnage in Iraq is the responsibility of the terrorists and former regime elements. They should be condemned in the most vociferous terms.

Here are the most common forms of "debate" from the leftists:
a) Change the subject;
b) Assert something as fact without any backup. Since they SAID it was so, it IS so;
c) Engage in hostile name-calling, often under the guise of witty repartée.
d) Reassert their original "thought." See "b" above;
e) End their "points of debate" with a disingenuously compassionate phrase so as to show moral superiority over those who disagree with them while simultaneously attempting to inject a sense of guilt into the "offending" party's mind;
f) Level a baseless charge of "foul" or "racism" as a means to discount and/or distract from the disagreement at hand;

Steve comments above fall neatly within the bounds of the methods of "debate" I mention above.

"...then bush and the warmonger pro-zionist neo-cons have failed miserably." That would be parts "b" and "c."

"...As long as bin Laden is making TV appearances, then the Vulcan foreign policy is a joke. Iraq was a side show which has gone on far longer and is much more expensive than anyone on the Right ever thought possible. That means it has failed." That again, would be part "b."

"Peace." Is the favorite "signature" of Steve's. I suppose that including it at the end of each and every one of his posts is his way of asserting moral superiority over all of us "warmonger pro-zionist neo-cons." That would be an example of point "e".

I doubt democracy at the point of a gun will ever work. Peace

Those that beat the drum loudest for a war in Iraq were the Zionists(Wolfowitz,Pearl, Kristol,Lieberman), the Armageddonists(Falwell,Robertson,Dobson) and the neo-cons(Cheney,Rumsfeld,Fred Barnes,Hitchens). That is a fact and has nothing to do with name calling. And my purpose is to get some Peace hence the sign off. Peace

Mark, good thinks happen to those who are patient, don't give up and work hard to achieve a goal. We are winning the war against islamo fascism, despite the efforts of al queda and the dem party. Evidence of this is the fact that we have not been attacked in over 4 1/2 years. We have also killed alot of bad guys and continue to do so. We also have a president with a backbone of steel, who will give them no rest or sanctuary.

Will & Canadian Observer

Liberals are in fact turning tail and running. The Bush administration is attempting to engage an enemy who is trying to destroy America and the West. This enemy is capable of caring out its wishes. Instead of constructively helping the administration engage and defeat this enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, they attack the people who are trying to defend them. I think liberals want to committ suicide. The liberal states in America are not reproducing fast enough to continue themselves. The Liberals are blocking attempts at border control that might keep those out who would attempt to do us harm. The lierals block attempts to develop our own natrual resources that would make us less dependent on foreign oil sources. Liberals resist any attempt to apply decisive force against a very powerul enemy who wants to destroy the society they live in. The Liberals who rule Western Europe only spend about 1 percent of their GDP on defense. This is while their countries are being over run with Islamic Extremists. Liberals appear to be suicidal.

Canadian Observer

The "roar" would be more productive if it were directed against the Islamic Extremists that we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. I think Canda and the US are big trading partners. Should the US be conqured this enemy, I don't think this would be good for Canada. The goal of the enemy we are engaging in Iraq and around the world has a goal to "raise the flag of Islam over the whole world." I'm not optimistic they would stop south of Canada's border. Communist front organizations, such as ANSWR and the ACLU, along with the terrorists have teamed up along with their sympathisers in the main stream media to pull off a vicious propaganda campaign against the USA. At a minimum, tend to Canada's problems and allow the US to defend itself.

"I doubt democracy at gun point will ever work." - Ash

Perhaps you are right Ash. This has become a main stream media talking point. Much like the "Bush lied, kids died" diatribe. The good thing about talking points are they can be easily repeated, diseminated on a vast scale, be repeated over and over, and they require little thought. They can be especially effective becuase the leftist dominated public education system has dumbed down much of the populace. Now is the statement you made correct? Perhaps it is, however, I disagree. The American Revolution freeing America from Birtish rule was only possible becuase the Colonists had guns. Without a Civil War Afro-Americans might still be languishing under slavery. At a minimum, slavery would have likely continued longer than it did. Israel, an oasis of liberty in the middle east, survives because of its military. The United States and NATo were able to hold off Soviet Union conquest of Western Europe by a display of military force. Finally, Saddam Hussein would likely still be in power had the US not used military force to remove him. Iraq has had several successful elections. These elections probably would not have been possible if the US military were not present. So yes I do think Democracy at the point of a gun can work. In fact, it seems to me Democracy only survives because of the "gun point." It seems to me the msm talking point is incorrect. None of this is meant to imply that I think GW Bush is a good president or that I think invading Iraq or trying to bring Democracy to it was a strategically wise decision. A strong case could be made against invading Iraq and personally I think we can do better than GW Bush as president. Also, there is some evidence that seems to suggest that Islamists are incapable of the type of Democracy that can peacefully co exist with the West. For all his flaws, GW Bush is trying to defend America. He will ulitmately be judged by whether or not his policies work and not by what he tried to do.

Finaly, Canadian Observer, we would all do better to come together and work to defeat the Marxists and their Islamic Extremists allies than fighting among ourselves. If Liberals would work with the Bush Administration here nad if other Western Countries would substantially increase their military spending, I think we could defeat this enemy fairly quickly. Right now the Bush Administration and America are having to shoulder most of the load. Constructive critiques on how we can do better are always appreciated. Vicious attacks against those men and women who are working day and night to try and kepp Americans and Westerners alive are not appreciated.

And thinking dangerous people can be appeased by us putting our arms down while they build theirs doesn't work either.

And thanks Steve for proving exactly what you are, clearly someone who hates everything America has stood for for the last half century or more. Damn those pesky Jews wishing to have their own homeland and live in some sense of security.

All I can do is shake my head. PEACE (see how retarded it sounds when it's disingenuous as it appears to be when you include it at the end of an inflammatory racist comment)

"And thinking dangerous people can be appeased by us putting our arms down while they build theirs doesn't work either."

Putting our arms down? What we have 30 kazillion nuclear weapons and Iran might build one?

Let's try something novel. Butt out of everybodies business. We have some huge, Halliburton sized problems of our own.

"We have some huge, Halliburton sized problems of our own."

Like the anti-American crowd that keeps trying to instill a collective sense of guilt into the minds of anyone who supports our President or the Administration's goals... and who offer nothing of substance as an alternative to the road that we're on...

And like the illegal trespassers who clamber into this country and demand rights to which they are not entitled. And the politicos on both sides of the aisle who seem eager to pander to them to the detriment of their legitimate constituencies...

And like the Demublicans who thwart every legislative effort to move this country into a state of energy independence. Or, for that matter, any legislation on any topic whatsoever, so long as it was generated by the majority party.

Ash,

Do you really think that the 10,000 US nuclear warheads are as much as threat as even 1 Iranian nuclear warhead? I'm serious here - are you of the opinion that it is the inanimate object that is the problem, or who owns it?

Deleted - Re-hashed conspiracy theories

Who owns it, what their motives are, and how many they own are all factors. To answer your question and thinking globally, yes I think the United States is a much more serious threat to world stabilty. We have already proven that we will strike preemptively to advance our agenda.

The good thing about talking points are they can be easily repeated, diseminated on a vast scale, be repeated over and over, and they require little thought.

And, BPoster, they can be TRUE.

George Lakoff was the first to explain this principle in his work "Don't Think of an Elephant"

The Republican success in recent years is in large part because they have learned that the most important element in public discourse is to phrase the argument. Clean Air Initiative, was anything but. No Child Left Behind did. Talking points are used by both sides because they realize it's not only what you say, but how you say it, and how often you say it.

Unfortunately for society, the Republicans learned this earliest and continue to use it more effectively than Democrats.

I have a friend who's in the Navy and just returned from Iraq on Thursday. While there is some prifiteering occurring there, guess who ain't engaged in it? Halliburton. Peas...

"The good thing about talking points are they can be easily repeated, diseminated on a vast scale, be repeated over and over, and they require little thought.

And, BPoster, they can be TRUE."

So sez Ash. And since HE said it, it ABSOLUTELY IS True!!

They can also be vicious, no-basis-in-reality talking points. By their nature, they are "points to begin discussion with," not the alpha and omega of discussion.

Peas. Whirled Peas.

Ash
Please enlighten us...what is this dangerous 'agenda' that the US seeks to advance.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 6 — A British military helicopter crashed in the southern city of Basra on Saturday, apparently after being hit by a rocket, drawing crowds of cheering local residents who threw stones and Molotov cocktails, Iraqi officials said. As many as five service members were killed, and at least four Iraqis died in the ensuing chaos, witnesses and hospital officials said."
NYT, 7 MAY 06

That's how well we're doing in Iraq -- even in the "stable south." It's pretty clear we've catured those Shii hearts and minds and filled them with a love of western democracy.

I just don't know how many time this site can quote the NR's pet historian as if it meant anything.

Hansen has staked his academic credibility on the outcome of Bush's adventure in Iraq. That hardly makes him an independent or even academically-honest source. Why not just quote Bush, himself, or Rummy?

Everyone knows where the neocons are on Iraq, it's all good no matter what happens on the ground. That's not news.

Ash,

That is just strange...Americans, Indians, French, British, Israelis owning nuclear weapons is OK because none of these nations will use them unjustifiably, nor transfer them to a nation or group who would do so...France could have a million nuclear warheads and I'd not lose any sleep over it.

There are good people and bad people, Ash...and the bad people (lunatic Iranian theocrats, eg), shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If you can't see the difference, then the problem lies with you.

Ash,

Oh, and Lakoff is projecting - all that sound-bite and simple-minded politicing, that is a liberal Democrat invention...we've actually been working hard to fight against it, to bring the facts before the American people...to expose liberal slogans for the lies they are.

Salve,

And that, of course, is the only thing that happened in Iraq today...no, no schools were rebuilt, no medical care provided, no water treatment plants opened, no power lines strung...its all pure, unadulterated misery from start to finish...so bad is it that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have joined the army and police in order to fight terrorism because, with things so bad, they've simply got nothing else to do...this is all part of the Likud/Haliburton/Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC conspiracy to get all Iraqis in the army so we can steal their oil when they're not looking....

Ash wrote" "Lets try something novel. Butt out of everybodies business." I agree to a point. We are involved in alot of areas. I think we do need to reassess some of this. Its hard to believe we can be effective in everything we are trying to do. Our business is to defend ourselves, from an enemy who seeks to destroy us and is fully capable of carrying out their wishes. The business of this enemy is to do the following "burn the roots of anglo saxon civilization," "death to America," "death to Israel," "death to Britain" and to "raise the flag of Islam over the universe." The Iranians especially have made it clear that they think with the help of their allies, the Russians and the Chinese they can prevail. They are correct. This enemy is an enemy that seeks world wide control and they are capable of achieving this. They need to be treated as an enemy that is capable of defeating us. This is their business. Our buisness is to defend ourselves. Our agenda is to defend ourselves. If we must strike preemptively to help ensure our contined survival then so be it. Did we strike preemptively? Probably but we sure did spend alot of time at the UN. We bent over backwards to try and get a diplomatic solution but a diplomatic solution with enemy will only be possible when they understand their goals of world domination cannot be achieved. While it is true the US has more nuclear war heads than Uran would, the fact that they are closely allied with Russia and China levels this playing field. Our agenda is self defense. Their agenda is world domination. So one nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran is more dangerous than one million in the hands of the Americans.

You are right about talking points. They can be true. I respectfully disagree with you that the Republicans are better at it than the Democrats. The Democrats dominate the main stream news media. There talking points receive much more wide spread coverage than Republican talking points. The Republcians have won recent elections because their substance is better and in the internet age and in the age of alternative media it is easier to counteract false talking points, no matter who they are from. For example, without the internet and other alternative sources I think it is highly unlikely "Rathergate" as some have labeled it could have been counteracted. As dbogdan puts it talking points can also have no basis in facts and be vicious. The various "Bush lied" diatribes fall into this category. The talking point you gave earlier, "I doubt democracy at the point of a gun will ever work." The msm has used variations of this talking point. The talking point may be correct but I think I demonstrated evidence that Democracy can be advanced at the point of a gun and in fact it needst the point of a gun to survive. In essence, it seems to me the talking point is incorrect.

Btw, you refer to no child left behind and a clean air act. The Republicans have spent entirely to much money and at least no child left behind seems to have accomplished nothing. This is a valid critcism. The clean air act, I'm not sure about. Americans do breathe the cleanest air on earth. The Government porbably had nothing to do with this. I'm a Conservative, as such, I want the Government out of most areas they are involved in. Sorry for the length.

Ash

In the previous post I think I forgot to include something. Part of our business is develop our own energy sources, add more refineries, get Government spending under control, and secure our borders. Regarding deveoping our own energy sources and building more refineries, the Bush administration has tried to open up drilling in ANWR to have it shot down by certain members of Congress and the Republcians recently introduced a bill to streamline the process of building new refineries, only to have that shot down by certain members of Congress. Regarding securing the borders, this administration appears to have done a miserable job here. Even if we did all of these things, I do not think it would be sufficient to defeat this enemy but it sure would help. At least it would probably give us some leverage at the negotiating table and within the UN.

Clean Skies Intitiative? No Child Left Behind? Pleez Mark. The Repuglicans have mastered framing the argument. They have fashioned this war of American aggression as necessary, cause the boogey man's gonna getcha. All you guys do is spin.

It's all pretty moot at this point. This administration is over. He is so far down in the polls that the chances of him doing any more harm himself is very slim/

Steve

You refer to the Zionists of Wolfowitz, Pearl, Kristol, and Lieberman. Israel has a right to exist and Israel and America's interests are the same. We both face the same enemy who wants to destroy and/or enlsave us. As I have said before, this enemy is fully capable of realizing their goals. Even if Israel ceased to exist, this would not solve our problems. All it would mean is that terrorist assets now deployed against Israel would be deployed elsewhere. They would probably be deployed against the USA or Western Europe. In other words, Israel is the most important buffer that the Western World has between it and the terrorists. To weaken Israel makes the West and America more difficult to defend. It would be prudent to stand with Israel, as they are our most important ally. To the extent these men acted to help our most important ally, I salute them. I doubt we are fighting with the primary goal of helping Israel. In order to get ceratin countries on board the "road map to peace" initiave was launched. If this land for peace deal were ever fully implemented it would make Israel far more difficult to defend through conventional means. Thankfully the gorup who initiated this may be about to shelve it. I hope so!! It seems the Palestinians are simply to filled with hate to danyting constructive. Peacw with this enemy will only be possible when they give up their insane desire to destroy Israel and they come tor ealize their goals of world domination cannot be achieved.

You refer to Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson as armageddonists. These men have no real power. The group they represent is the least powerful political group in the USA. It is really quite funny to watch the liberal obsession with such an insignificant group. The focus on such an insignificant group probably helps to explain why Liberals have lost the last few elections. Some of the representives of this group have tried to warn Americans for years about the danger posed to them by Islamic Extremists and they tried to warn people about the difficulty Iraq would pose. It is a pity more people would not listen to them. Btw, I'm not aware that James Dobson has had anything to say about this. His main focus is working to ensure equal rights for Christian families. As for Cheneym Rumsfeld, Fred Barnes, and Hitchens, Fred Barnes and Christopher Hitchens are commentators and seem to have very little power over the actual decision making process. The fight in Iraq is but one front in the war against a very large and powerful enemy who is fully capable of enslaving and/or destroying the USA. As for Cheney and Rumsfeld, they are attempting to engage this enemy and to defend America. Ultimately they will be judged by whether or not they succeed and not by their intentions.

Salvelinus

The people who shot down this helicopter are probably the same ones who blow up mosques and outdoor food markets. These are probably the same people who plant roadside bombs. They are probably the same people who attempt to shoot people going to vote. They are probably the ones who assainated elected officials. They are probably backed by the Iranians who are backed by the Russians and Chinese. In other words, these people are part of an enemy who poses a direct survival threat to the USA and Britain. The correct response to them should be utter contempt and not to celebrate their actions. The "Bush adventure" along with that of America's coalition partners is the defense of America and the West. Ultimately he will be judged not by his intentions but by his actual results. I would say the results are mixed. He has removed the terrorist enabler of the former Iraqi government. While the terrorists are busy trying to recapture their Iraqi stronghold this is less time and resources to engage in attacks on the US and Western Europe. So far they have fought to a stalemate. Decisive action by either the terrorists or the coalition will need to be taken to break the stalemate. The British troops who lost their lives died defending their country from an enemy who represents a survival threat to their country. The Iraqis who died were probably either bystanders who were killed by the terrorists or they were killed by the British as they defended themselves.

If Victor Davis Hansen has attached his credibilty to democracy taking hold in Iraq, he may be in trouble. From what I know, I'm skeptical that Islam is compatible with a form of Democracy that can peacefully coexist eith America and the West.

Steve

I'm not sure if this was included in my previous post. If it was, please accept my apologies. You refer to armagedonists of Robertson and Falwell. Whatever these folks may think or not think is not relevant to Government policy making, as they have no real influence. That being said, it is a real pity they do not have more influence. Members of their group predicted 911 years before it happened. Had they been listened to perhaps 911 could have been prevented. They also warned of the difficulty of Iraq. Had they been listened to perhaps Iraq could have been planned better. Having written all of this, the Armageddonists you need to worry about are the ones who rule Iran. They are trying to bring about 12th Iman. They think they need an apocolypse to do this. When the media does not report or downplays the religous motivations of this enemy they do the American people a dis service.

"war of American aggression"

Hey!!! You sound just like Osama Bin Laden, what a coincidence!!!!!

Your last post reveals the problem your side has and why I cannot trust them with national security. You accuse the Americans of a "war of agression." This is untrue. This is a war for America's survival. The terrorists are no boogey man. They are a very real threat. This is an enemy who is capable of defeating America and needs to be treated as such. If most Americans think this war for our survival is a war of agression the media spin has been more successful than I thought. I do think most Americans may think it has not been executed as well as it could have been and perhaps we should not be there but if they assume we are the bad guys then the media spin has been more successul than I thought. When you get past this "war of agression" bunk, we can get down to business on how best to defend America. You've said we need to do more about border security and here you imply the terrorists are some sort of a mythical boogey man invented by Republicans. If they are some sort of mythical boogey man, then there is no need to worry about securing our borders. To think you wonder why this man ignores your ideas. He has acted to take the fight to an enemy who threatens our very survival and you accuse him of a war of agression. If you slandered me, in this manner, I would not want to engage you either. The reason you lost the last election is becuase you will not purge this kind of thinking from your midst. Blogger and author Dan Flynn, who is opposed to the war in Iraq, put it best when he wrote, to paraphrase,"when Americans are forced to pick between GW Bush amd the leftist crowd they invariably choose GW Bush."

Btw, you are probably not familiar with "American Hirsohima." This is Al Qaeda's plan to detonate nuclear war heads on American soil. The main stream media ignores or downplays these things. Also, when the media ignores or downplays the religous motivations of our enemies, the American people are not getting a full picture. I'm not sure how far down in the polls Bush is. They look bleak but the ones I've seen are heavily weighted to favor Democrats. I've already said I think we can do better than Bush but anyone who thinks this is some sort of boogey man is not someone I can trust to handle national securtiy. Any candidate will have to begin with the understanding that the terrorists are a real threat and they along with their allies are fully capable of doing us serious harm or outhright defeating us. Once this is realized, strategies can be formulated to defeat them.

NC Cop

I noticed the war of agression claim as well. Its extremely hard to fight this war that in my considered opinion is for our survival, when a segment of the population is determine to undermine the effort at every turn. We can have what seem to be the flawed policies of Bush who at least is trying to defend the country or we can have the do nothings who repeat Bin Laden's diatribes. In otherwords, these people don't even think we are in a war. I think it represents a coping mechanism. To face the fact that we are in a fight for our survival is simply to painful for them, so they try to ignore it hoping it will go away. You want be able to wish this one away.

This "war of aggression" claim has the same weight in my mind as Prime Minister Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Time" speech. Unfortunately, there are some people who will look straight into the eye of evil and see something other than what is so clear to the rest of the world. An aggressive pursuit to ensure our national security is imperative, given the aggressive effort to attack our country on September 11, 2001 by multiple planes intent on destroying multiple targets.

The approach of mocking our response to the aggressive attacks of September 11, 2001 by calling it a "war of aggression," is the primary reason why it is imperative that the leftists be denied control of the halls of power in this country. They simply don't get it. They refuse to recognize the enormity of the struggle we face. Therefore, power should be granted to a political party that does get it. For whatever political warts, the Republicrats at least recognize this fundamental reality - at least on this issue.

On border security, and on immigration reform, neither the Demublicans nor the Republicrats seem to get it. That's why I'm looking for a third political party to step in to fill the gap that these parties seem willing to cede. The time is ripe for a rise of a third party. The Demublicans are committing hari-kari by pandering to the leftist fringe elements at the expense of national security. The Republicrats are similarly bent on self-immolation as they ignore their conservative base who cries out for border security and a comprehensive energy policy. I'll be sure to vote in the coming election - but I'll vote for every non-incumbent and non-D, non-R candidate that's on the ballot. It's time Americans take back the power that's being squandered by both political parties. These parties are corrupt and out of touch. They need to be reminded that despite their best efforts, Americans still want to exercise their option for real choice. And since both the Republicrats and Demublicans seem to think that they are the only game in town, it behooves the voting constituents to remind them that, in the final analysis, they are most certainly NOT!!

How have we done?

Ask border patrol and port authority.

"in my considered opinion is for our survival," -BPoster

That's the great thing about our country BPoster. You can opine that way and I can opine that we were the aggressors and the war was based on lies (see Rumsfeld).

Seems like there is a below freezing apporoval rating for the President (31%). Let me be the first to say we appreciate the minorities input, but don't think it is very accurate at this time.

Hey Ash,

Isn't this the same crap you guys were screaming right before Bush got re-elected? Sure sounds like it.

It seems to me that most people do not approve the way of how the War on Terror is being executed or whether or not we should be in Iraq. I'm not particularly pleased with how Bush is handling his job but it seems most people do not believe things like Bush is evil or we are the aggressors. Hopefully we can withdraw our troops soon but we must ensure the terrorists who control the insurgency are never allowed to gain the power they crave. These are the same people who ran terrorists canps and plotted attacks on Americans before. They would simply re establish these camps and we would be in worse shape than we were before. These people represent a threat to the survival of our nation and must be defeated. While the main stream media covers events they distort the coverage, works from many sources that would contradict the conventional wisdom that Saddam had no or limited ties to terrorists and that Iraq had no WMD are ignored or downplayed. Get the full story out and the people will have all the information available to make a fair decison. Being in the minority or the majority does not make a view point right or wrong. Regarding Rumsfeld's lie, there is an excellent analysis on this at www.rightwingnuthouse.com under the blog heading "Rumsfeld's Folly." This sums up the situation better than I can articulate it. I do not think most Americans want us to lose in Iraq but I think they do think it could be handled better. I agree. I would suggest someone like John McCain. He has significant differences of opinion with the Administration but I think he grasps the seriousness of the situation. The trouble with the Democrats, as I see it, and as I think the people in 2002 and 2004 saw it is they won't distance themselves from the Anti-American Left, such as moveon.org, Mchael Moore, and the Bush is Evil crowd. If the Democrats will do this, they will easily win the next election. If not, they may not fare very well. In this case, time will only tell if raw hatred combined with what seems to be few constructive ideas will be enough to defeat the Republicans who have clearly not performed as well as they probably could have. Instead of the Bush is evil talking points, admit he is not evil and he is doing the best he can in a difficult situation but the Democrats should explain how they will do better. If you want folks to listen to you, constructive criticism will generally work better than name calling.

Ad for constructive critcism that I think would work for the Democrats or a thrid party is to point out how little the Republicans have done on border security. The Al Qaeda threat and other terrorist threat and why it is a threat to our survival and why it is a threat to our survival does not lend itself well to short talking points, whereas, border securtiy does. This is something they could run on. To say the Republicans and Bush have done a bad job here is an understatement. Btw, If most people understood the terrorist threat Bush along with all the democrats would be impeached for not taking it seriously eneough!!