We can't work with them, we can't change their minds - we can only hold them off as best we can as we go about the task of winning the war.

This is ever so true, Mark, yet the Reid's and Pelosi's blather on and on about the partisan divide created by President Bush. As if they would unite the country if they took control.

We have to hold them off, but the question is, do patriotic Americans still have the resolve?

I remember reading that the GOP really didn't want to go to war in Europe, yet, they kept their mouths shut, and back the needs of the United States. I cannot imagine if the roles were reveresed in 1942, and FDR was a GOP president.

Well, actually, I can. Dems would have been complained non stop about the massive carpet bombings of cities, which killed massive amounts of civilians. They would have complained about the Japanese in internment camps. They would have yammered on about the quagmire in the Pacific, and who we couldn't win.

They would have had Japanese and Nazi culture days in schools. They would say that Germany was no threat to the USA, and that FDR lied, as well as the afformentioned conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor, which was surely an attempt by FDR to steal the oil in the Mideast. Remember, we took the fighting to the ME.

The problem is that the Dems have no morals, no guiding compass, no real beliefs (other then abortion on demand). They will say and do anything to take back the federal gov't, regardless of whether it is detrimental to the country they say they support.

Excuse me?

FDR rallied the country behind the war effort.

Bush told us to shop and then cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy.

FDR / Truman WON World War II

George W. Bush is LOSING the war in Iraq

In WWII, people lined up around the block to enlist because they believed in the necessity of fighting the war.

In Iraq, even the people who believe Bush when he says that Iraq is the 21st century equivalent of the cold war and WWII aren't enlisting.

Put all ths spin on it you want. That won't change the facts. Blame anything and everything to avoid holding Bush accountable. My cousin died in Iraq. My brother (a colonel) returned from Iraq and retired early due to Bush's incompetence (his word, not mine).

Notice that RadioLeft never refuted the actual substance of the post, which is that during WWII, the GOP backed the war effort, vs today, where teh Dems are against everything in our fight against terrorism.

BTW, RadioLeft, they really didn't have a choice in WWII. There was a little thing called "the Draft."

Damm, facts are pesky things to the left.

Radio,
FDR rallied our country to the war effort by provoking a strike against Pearl Harbor that killed and subsequent strikes that killed thousands of people. He cut off petroleum sales to Japan, backing them into a corner that he would have understood (presuming he wasn't ignorant of Japanese culture) to make war inevitable.

FDR knew we were a sleeping giant, as the Japanese military did. And make sure you're clear, he didn't rally our country to anything. He isn't that powerful, he's only one man. But our country did rally behind him, including Republicans. The fascists in the Middle East are as ignorant to us being a sleeping giant as was Hitler and the Japanese Emperor. They believed themselves to be servants of a greater design, a new world order of fascism, as the terrorists believe.

I wanted to sign up several months ago, but because of a surgery I had more than ten years ago, I can't get past the physical. Many of the posters of this blog either are serving or have served and continue to believe in this war, just as 57% of veterans believed that when they elected Bush again in 2004. Just as the Japanese did, we hope the solution of a genius that will avoid a world war. But like Roosevelt, we're not willing to take a military solution off the table because time is precious, as more and more Middle Eastern children (and some American children) are being indoctrinated like the Hitler youth.

You make an assumption here, too. In 1942, it was far from clear that we were winning the war. We took some horrible losses by reclaiming one piece of rock after another in the Pacific, by going after each military base dug into a mountain instead of going after the mainland of Japan. I'm sure a fair share of the military disagreed with those decisions. But most of them agreed that we couldn't let fascism stand. I pray for your cousin, we've lost thousands of good people fighting this war, and I wonder whether it will be a blessing to you if you come to understand the kind of world from which your cousin saved us.

As Senator Biden said today, "The only similarity between the Iraq War and WWII is that shortly the Iraq War will have lasted as long."

Quite true. Becauser back then the minority party didn't play petty politics with the national security of the USA, nor were they divorced from reality.

A few years back I purchased a DVD set titled "Why We Fight", produced by the war department in the early 1940's it was shown in theaters and schools across the country, and mandatory viewing for the military. You wont find a better look into the mindset of the time, or a better example of war-time propaganda.
It is an interesting video that I would encourage anyone that can find it to buy and watch. It gives a very accurate account of the events leading up to and including Pearl Harbor.

Japan Italy and Germany had a pact, that if any were in danger of defeat, the others would intervene, thus when the U.S. got involved in the conflict with Germany, it was Japans responsibility to attack the U.S.

The war in Iraq can not be compared to WWII in any way relative to the political nature of either time frame. This is just another one of Marks blind mindless attacks against the Democrats. It is sad how desperate the bushbots are to attack Democrats. When are we going to see some blogs for Bush? Or are these attacks on the Democrats how you blog for Bush?

James,

Nice try - but the Democrats aren't just disputing actions, they are advocating defeat in the war - and they are doing this because they think that defeatism will win them votes in November.

It is disgusting.

Mark, I'm not sure what that had to do with what I wrote here, but thats OK.
Can you provide a link to Democrats advocating defeatism? I'm not sure that's accurate, but I have to at least partially agree with you on the motives, it's mostly about the elections. I'm sure we have a different view about the motives for winning the election though. Also, it's important to distinguish between individual Democrats and united Democrats.

Exact comparisons between the GWOT and WWII are not possible, however, there are similarities between the GWOT and WWII. There are also similarities between the current fight and Vietnam.

The greatest threats to American national security are, in this order, Russia, China, Iran, and the various Islamic terrorists groups who are beting supported by Iran. The former Iraqi government even supported some of these Islamic terrorist groups supported these groups. Also, Russia and China are the primary backers of Iran. This Communists and Islamic extremist alliance is an existential threat to the USA.

When deciding whether or not to continue our involvement with Iraq, policy makers need to ask themselves if continuing to commit to Iraq helps or hurts us in our efforts to deal with Russia, China, Iran, other Islamic extremist countries, and the Islamic terrorist organizations they support. If we can achieve a stable Iraq that is allied with the US against this enemy, this would help us to deal effectively with this enemy. If we are unable to achieve a stable Iraq who is allied with the US, this would be a huge set back to us.

Ultimately what it comes down to is are we willing to make the commitment it is going to take to achieve a stable Iraq that is allied with the US. If we are not willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve success, we should withdraw without delay and make our stand somewhere else. So far the Iraq war seems to have been a net loss to us, in dealing with the threats posed by Russia and China. This situation has come about largely because we have been unwilling or unable to commit the necessary number of troops to have a realistic chance of achieving the mission in a timely manner. If we are unwilling to commit the necessary resources to Iraq or the GWOT, we should withdraw to fortress America.

The bottom line is after 911 when the President told the American people to "go shopping" or something to this effect he made a mistake. The US government should have called for massive increases in the military and immediately placed the country on a war footing much like what was done during WWII. Even if we ultimately decide to withdraw from Iraq, substantial increases in the size and strength of the military should be undertaken without delay. It is higly probable that we are going to need them, at some point in future.

Something else we need to do is lessen our dependence on foreign oil. A good place to begin would be by developing more of our own domestic oil resources. The fact that there has not been a major push to develop more of our own resources and there has not been a major effort to increase fuel efficency indicates to me that neither major political party is as serious about winning the GWOT as they should be.

I am getting very tired of the neverending comparisons between WW2 and Iraq.
May I remind everyone of the overwhelming support for George W. Bush immediately after 9/11? The Democrat contenders are still trying to play down their support for the war. Bush had just as much support in the beginning as FDR.

Unfortunately, Bush wasn't dealing with an enemy that wore uniforms, built bases out in the open that could be bombed, and so on.
Unfortunately, Bush attacked country after country, changing his strategy every few months. Our enemy is Al-Qaida! Sorry, I meant the Taliban! No, Saddam. No, Iraqi terrorists.
Unfortunately, several "public relations" blunders were made during the effort. Protecting the Oil ministry at the cost of the Museum. Having Saddam's arsenal looted right out from under the Army's gaze. Awarding Cheney's old company with the rebuilding contract, which they padded. Losing track of billions of dollars over there. Torturing prisoners.
These things have added up over the last few years, and there have been no major victories to counter them. And before we get the obligatory MSM rant, just remember that sweeping through a neighbourhood and picking up 12 suspects and 20 guns is not a victory - it is a police report. A victory is blasting Saddam's 1st Armored Division back to the stone age, and that was accomplished back before the bad news began.
Plus, unfortunately, a lot of the current anger at the war has little to do with the war itself - it is Katrina backlash.

Anyway, it's time to move on. The terrorists have to be contained. More important, their venom - their doctrines - must be contained. We need ideas for the Information War on Terror. We need to stop fighting Americans and find new ways to fight terrorism.

In spite of whatever the left says.

After we were attacked on Sept. 11, the Democrats rallied behind President Bush and the Democrats still support the war in Afghanistan.

Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Republicans were dead set against going to war. If Roosevelt entered World War II without the U.S. being attacked (as Bush did in Iraq), I doubt the Republicans would have been as supportive of Roosevelt as they were.

With the exception of World War II and probably Afghanistan, there has been domestic opposition to every major war the U.S. has fought in.

Brian,

True enough about the anti-war in the past - but I don't think we've ever had a political Party predicating its success upon the defeat of America in war.

"We can't work with them, we can't change their minds - we can only hold them off as best we can as we go about the task of winning the war."-MN

Well said, Mark. These November elections are absolutely crucial to the survival of the American Way.

I don't think we've ever had a political Party predicating its success upon the defeat of America in war.

For once, you're actually right, Noonan. We never have had that. And despite your sad little implications to the contrary, we still don't have that today.

1996 vs. 2006. Read the article below from U.S. News from July 30, 1996

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend.

The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

How about 1942 vs 2002?

Then look what happened in the 3 years following. As has been previously stated there was huge support for Bush (look at the poll numbers) as the US went after those responsible for 9/11 but then, for whatever reason, that focus was lost--and OBL is still out there. That support was squandered. 3 years later the US is in a quagmire in Iraq--it is turning (or has already turned) into a civil war that the US will be challenged to leave on a positive side, much less win. Bush has just stated that there was no direct link between Iraq/Saddam and and Al-Qaeda.

3 years after 1942 the war was won.

The post mentions the sacrifice that US citizens had to undergo to win WW2--lights out, along with things like fuel and food rationing, etc. Where is that sacrifice now? Are we being asked to conserve fuel? (one of the direct causes of our interest in the middle east) Are we being asked not to waste resources? Perhaps support for 100x fewer fighting the war doesn't require such sacrifice, but perhaps if resources were better deployed and directed Iraq might be rebuilding now. (which wouldn’t be necessary except for the poor leadership that took us there without just cause)

Perhaps there's a way to regain focus on the security issue at hand--terrorism--but that requires better leadership than either party is showing right now (or has shown for quite some time) while not leaving other domestic issues behind.