Here is the "comprehensive plan" the democrats have been talking about.

1. Reinstate draft
2. Blame Bush for draft
3. Burn Draft cards
4. Blame bush for being arrested for burning draft cards
5. Complain, blame bush, smoke pot.
6.Blame bush when pot is out.

Funny thing is - Democrats DON'T join the military. The draft would affect THEM.

Goodness, I thought you guys would be so happy! We could reinstate the draft and rev up the machine fighting the war on "terror". We could put the soldiers into the fray like coals on a B-B-Q.

Kahn states "Democrats DON'T join the military. The draft would affect THEM." Well here's the chance to give the poor enlisted republicans a chance to come home for awhile.

I for one would LOVE to see our Jenna and Barbara in camo. They could march into battle with their M-16's screaming at the top of their lungs, "BRING EM' ON!"

Oh yeah. Everybody goes. You see, this is a WAR. A war on TERROR.

A war against islamist extremists.

Let all of our (your) young free the Iraqi people.

Let everybody share in the prospect for peace and bringing American style democracy to the middle east.

So Repub's, put your money where your mouth is, this WAR is for everybody now isn't it.

I mean it's the battle of good against evil.

I'm still waiting to find out what the "noble cause" was. Maybe this will help.

Bring em'on!

I'm still waiting to find out what the "noble cause" was.

raker13,

Hmmmm, well, You just might get to find out what it is, instead of "was" afterall!

.....and then, We just might have something to be proud of, about YOU!!!

Ah, yes, No more belly-aching just good ol satisfaction in knowing we have our one and only raker up there fighting fer his country...

Don't back out on us now, little wakor, do your duty...better go check the door, some brave soldier might be knocking...

BOO!!

Jeremiah

I knew this post was going to be a real Blogs for Bush winner as soon as I saw the headline:

"Democrats Propose A Draft"

Charlie Rangel is an experienced and capable legislator, but he's only one Democrat. I suppose it makes for better demagoguery, to try to give the impression this is some kind of subversive plot by X-number of Democrats, though — at least for those who don't bother to read or think beyond the headlines.

And besides, since when are you guys going to let little factual details like one not being plural get in the way, right?

It's not hard to imagine what you'd have to say if Rangel and maybe other Democrats were to speak in opposition to a military draft -- as in, "You see, they don't give a damn about defending Mom, apple pie and the good old U.S. of A!"

As for the demographics of military service nowadays, there's a heavy and obvious tilt toward the less affluent and less well connected. No, that's not to say the ranks are completely filled with poor folks.

However, in a choice between doing five or six years at an Ivy League university before transitioning toward eventually taking over at dad's business, or business empire, the lure of falling in at 5:30 a.m., getting yelled at all day, marching for hours, living on dining hall cuisine and down the line maybe getting blown to bits in Baghdad comes in at an extremely weak second in most well-heeled young Americans' future plans.

raker13 wrote:

"I'm still waiting to find out what the "noble cause" was."

Think equal parts oil and for channeling taxpayers' billions to outfits like Halliburtion, Kellogg Brown & Root, Bechtel, Parsons and the Lincoln Group. Oh, and George w. hated Saddam, personally.

Well Matt, you neo-conservatives are experts on how to divide America and so we will all take your word for it, because you would know a wedge issue when you see one.

Americans are already more divided than they have ever been since the civil war. A draft will remind people properly of the real cost of war and that is the loss of countless lives.

If enough people do that, it will be harder in the future for rogue presidents to start unjustified wars based on lies or deceit or strictly for profit for members of the administration.

SW,

In the plural, we're just a day in advance, if that - Rangel will get co-sponsors...though it will never make it out of committee because Pelosi doesn't want any floor votes which will reveal the deep and unbridgable fissures in the Democratic caucus.

At any rate, what Rangel is proposing is asinine - and you are quite incorrect when imply that the poor are over-represented in the armed forces...the truth of the matter is that the middle class is over-reprsented, the rich are represented at the expected rate and the poor are under-represented. The canard "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has been around since the Civil War, and it has never been true, not even for a moment.

The idea of a draft is asinine because it is a throwback to 200 years ago...Napoleon used masses of conscript soldiers, ergo using masses of conscript soldiers is necessary for fighting a war. The truth of the matter is that even way back then, large masses of conscript troops just made a mess of things. Napoleon's greatest victories were won with smaller numbers of veteran troops, and when he massed his largest armies (Russia in 1812, Germany in 1813), he was unable to control their movements, and was thus defeated. But the idea stuck, and was especially re-inforced when the mass, conscript armies of Prussia had stunning victories in 1866 and 1870 - no one paying attention to the fact that they armies defeated were woefully substandard and properly trained and led forces would have crushed Prussia both times, in spite of numerical superiority.

If anything should have disabused people of the notion of conscript armies, then WWI and WWII should have done it - conscription in WWI just gave substandard generals an endless supply of cannon fodder, and thus made them unwilling to think and alter their ways to secure victory...it became a mere killing match, with whomever had the largest number of human bodies winning. WWII wasn't as bloody for the troops, but the plain fact of the matter is that only one in twelve US soldiers saw combat in WWII...meaning that we had literal millions of men using up resources to no purpose...it would have been better to have fewer men, better trained and equipped.

Right now we've got an military which is, man for man, the best ever fielded in the history of the world - these men are sharp...and they don't get yelled at all day, because they are professionals who have mutual respect up and down the chain of command. They know their job, and they do it better than anyone else. They might not have college degrees, but in terms of the intellect needed to do their job plus the courage necessary to face the enemy, any one of them stacks up against a dozen degree'd civilians sitting there writing on a blog about how the military life is unappealing.

18 to 42 is a bit over teh top for a draft, but I wouldn't mind seeing males 18 to 26 subjected to a draft again.

Imagine, all the anti-war left that fought so hard for a Democrat majority receiving draft notices to report for "immediate induction" because of their own efforts.

If it happens, you can't say we didn't warn you.

So, just reading the liberal posts.... you guys drink vinegar for breakfast or what?

You guys are both sour losers and sour winners. Maybe, you're just sour people.

Saddam's Iraq was a dangerous enemy. We, an that includes the Democratic leadership and every other country thought he had an advanced WMD program. He HAD violated multiple UN resolutions.

Republican join the military out of a sense of service and adventure. We reject your pseudo-intellectual classifications of us. Mostly because they are childish and not based in fact. The military is NOT lower class, it is MIDDLE class. But whatever, your prejudices are showing.

Halliburton - hmmm, well tell ya what look into who owned Bell Helicopter all through the Viet Nam war and get back to me OK?

You people are angry bile filled people. Your hatred comes through loud and clear. OK, we get it.

Axis,

Yes, Americans are divided - and the dividers have been you on the left, starting with Moore's slanderous pack of lies call "Farenheit 9/11"...it is you, on the left, who have, by a deliberate campaign of distortion and slander, made Americans divided against each other, while our enemies laugh.

I guess Mr. Rangel thinks that our all-volunteer military is too black, brown and poor for his liking.

The current military is more highly educated than their civilian peers. Without exception military leaders are against the draft as it will reduce the effectiveness of the fighting force that we have.

But then that would be in line with the democrat objective of evening the playing field for our enemies.

So, if I understand things correctly, Axis, raker13 and Charlie Rangel are chicken hawks?

why do we even need a draft? the troop are coming home, right? isn't that what america voted for? quitting? cutting and running? losing?

and wasn't it good ole john f'ing kerry (who served in vietnam) saying that if bush is re-elected he, and the republicans, will institue a draft?

"The canard 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' has been around since the Civil War, and it has never been true, not even for a moment."

God help us.

If you idiots would actually investigate before spouting off about headlines and soundbites, you'd know that Rangel supports the notion of at least a couple of years of service to the country for ever young person, whether that's in the military, in hospitals, in schools, volunteering in the community, and so forth. This idea has been discussed before and I like it.

You guys just get so knee-jerk pissed off about anything Democrats do you can't think about anything else. Grow up, boys.

Chris,

If it isn't voluntary, then it isn't service, but servitude. People have a right to be lazy leeches off the rest of society, because only when there is a choice to serve is there any moral value in service.

Only in a person with a slave's mindset is a draft for military service, or any other service, worthwhile.

Bring em'on!

It's "Bring 'em on," raper. You see, the apostrophe is used in lieu of the omitted letters. Of course, bein' a 13-year-old rapist, you wouldn't know that.

Grow up, boys.

We are grown up, Christine; you grow up, girl...

"the rich are represented at the expected rate and the poor are under-represented."

Expected rate? Expected rate? Ha! Thats a good one.
I feel better now. At least they're represented at the "expected rate".

I'm not the fastest horse on the track. But, I'm not the slowest, Jeremiah gets that award. But really, I thought you would be thrilled at the prospect of fresh meat.

Come on now, this is the WAR to end all WARS. The war of good and evil. Of godliness against Satanism. We must fight them over there or they will come here and keep us in a continual state of fear. I don't want Jeremiah tucking his blankies up around his nose, in the dark, quivering with fear that the Islamic boogie man is right outside his window.

I feel confident that a true warrior like Kahn would talk of manly things and prepare his kin for the battle to end all battles.

I mean this is it, isn't it fellas? Isn't this what you wanted? With a draft and quadrupling the fighting force over there, we could win lickity split and get our soldiers back home to revel in our great economy.

Right?

This idea has been discussed before and I like it.

Well sheeeiiitt, Christine, then we'd all better climb aboard and like it to, right? Who the hell are you, besides nobody?

whether that's in the military, in hospitals, in schools, volunteering in the community, and so forth.

So who pays all these "voluntters?" These are all jobs, already being filled, with the exception of the community service. This silliness was brought up, by the donk-turds, before. I think ol' Spitball Kerry, back when he was in the process of getting his ass kicked in '04, proposed some sort of community/civil service for young people, in return for a free college education. Just another way to create new taxes. That's all it is, Christine. One day you'll grow up and learn something; until then, we'll be glad to tutor ya...

LBJ's wife owned Bell Helipcopter.

Redneck,

It's Chris, not Christine. And raker, not raper. As Mark Noonan wrote: One of "the ground rules which will be rigorously enforced from now on..." on Blogs for Bush is "do not insult. Our definition of insult is to call someone a name, or corrupt their nom-de-blog in a scurrilous way."

As Mark is a Christian and an honorable man of his word, I expect your comment to be edited/deleted at any moment, along with other comments by posters who think corrupting someone's name makes a good argument.

I don't want Jeremiah tucking his blankies up around his nose, in the dark, quivering with fear that the Islamic boogie man is right outside his window.

Me neither, that's why I choose to be a MAN and go fight them in their own cursed land!!

Ha, You call them the "Islamic boogie man" man you sure do use their name 'lightly' don't you?
Should'nt be 'Islamic Terrorists' instead, I hate to say it, but, You may not know what Communism feels like now, but YOU WILL, If and when Spitball gets it for President!!

Just like Aaron the soldier wrote in his letter to America, You better be getting up off your lazy behind and making peace with God, Because you just invited the scourge in, those same enemies who attacked us on 9/11, except things much, much worse, you know, like, people with their throats slit from ear to ear, large cities completely demolished into rubble, huge power plants and refineries blew to smithereens!!!!!
America would be just completely depleted of all it's resources, because some people choose to stay at home and pretend like nothing will ever happen.

raker, you don't even know what you are saying when you talk about WAR, you don't even have the first ioda, It takes dedication and intelligence, something obviously you have'nt got, or just plain don't care, If on the next election, America takes the stance such as you take, then just maybe you will get you wish!!!!

I just hope and pray that you'll wake up, son!! You can bet I will be wide awake, because my families life is on the line, and you know what, I CARE about my family + some, and if you cared about your family you would do the same!!

You can snicker and make jokes and carry on, but you know, it just goes to show that you care nothing for America, and what we stand for, your just like John Kerry and the rest of the Communist bunch in Washington who could care-less, but I should'nt have to force you beyond your will, because only those who feel the need to do the right thing will in the end be the ones that take up that cause that stands still today on New York harbor!!!

So raker, If you hate America that bad, We've got plenty of boats and planes, hith-a-ride, son.

Everybody wave, GOOD-BYE, GAAA-BYE!!

P.S. DON'T FORGET TO WRITE US!!!!!!!

Poor boy

*shakes heads*

Jeremiah

Redneck,

Who we are doesn't matter here. The strength of our argument matters, and going by your second-grade name-calling, you're not too strong in that department. I recommend remedial education.

Here's an idea: If you are so opposed to a draft, yet supportive of military and community values, why not provide more incentives for young people to serve the country in some way? As Rangel has said, such service is "good for the kids and good for the country." Specifics could be worked out...maybe college credit for service projects or better education health benefits and pay for soldiers.

What I don't understand is how people who are just so proud of our volunteer soldiers let them toil away in Iraq for extremely low pay next to private contractors getting paid 5x (for example) as much. If you want more people to join the military, but don't want a draft, then phase out private contractors and phase in substantial pay raises for servicemen.

Calvin, your post leading off this thread is a freakin' hoot! It is spot on--we're you a teenager back in the Vietnam War days, as was I?

Well done, lad. I should cut-and-paste the entry, but then I'd be tempted to plagarize it later. It can be used on multiple occasions to describe the kook's reaction to all matters serious...

Ummm... I had to sign up for SS when I was 18...

You already have to sign up for a non-existant draft when you turn 18... Reinstating the draft will never happen... and if a draft is instituted, then I'm probably going to move to Canada... not gonna lie.

It's not a liberal thing... it's a violation of my of my individual rights to force me into anything.

Sorry for my grammatical blunders; "we're" should've been "were."

It wasn't a botched joke...

"It's not a liberal thing... it's a violation of my of my individual rights to force me into anything."

Is it? What about taxes? What about forcing you to observe other persons property rights?

You are proof why people willing to step up don't WANT your "forced" help. Because you'd be a draw.

Liberals are takers - not givers.

Yes raker, if we dont fight them somewhere else they will come looking for us here, as they have already done on multiple occasions. If you cant see that, youre naive.

I know you like to claim you dont believe it, making smarmy comments to persuade us that you think islamic terrorism is just a joke, but history is not on your side. On 9/10/01 your ilk screeched, "Dont you dare intervene anywhere", but on 9/12/01 you demanded to know of Bush "Why didnt you DO something?"

I dont have much time for the blinkered dimwits who make light of the WOT because, more often than not, your world consists of casual hedonism and your worries are no more serious than choosing which restaurant to patronize that night. Other better people are out there right now, standing watch and doing the crappy jobs which guarantee your right to whine.

Five years on and you have returned to your nineties delusion that everything is fine in the world, its only America that causes trouble. Well sister, the savages who burned down our skyscrapers are going to be back, they are going to hit even harder this time, and you better pray that your city isnt the unfortunate recipient of their anger. Those animals are going to stuff your condescending attitude straight up your ass, and they will do it with a smile on their face because they hate you and me and everyone else.

"Liberals are takers - not givers."

Tell that to every liberal whose served, over-generalizer, you.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y ploy for making such a proposal is the Vietnam era mentality towards making a war political. Sadly this man is out of touch with modern warfare of the past and is trying to make any "Republican" war political. Surely this man was not critical of Clintons wars or military strikes.

This is the high tech era which requires more brains than muscle compared to wars of the past. By placing unqualified people into the military would cause more troops to die in combat rather than save. Were not any longer just shooting guns and dropping non-laser bombs like in the Korean War which Rep. Charles Rangel has served. The weapons, tactical and otherwise are way more complex requiring skilled troops not just your average joe off the street. One can be critical of the Iraqi war without comforting the enemy and making it harder on our troops as there have been mistakes, but like Murtha, I believe this man is a traditor to this country.

Noonan, your regard for our forces in the world wars is the most perverse I've ever encountered. Your understanding of history is warped.

You're obviously confusing consequences and outcomes arising from the nature of a war and resulting war effort with the relative merits of conscription. The U.S. produced excellent fighting forces for both world wars. In WWII, especially, drafted soldiers and sailors did an incredible job. Both world wars were popular wars, ones in which virtually the entire U.S. public perceived our country was endangered and solidly supported the fight.

Conscription became extremely unpopular thanks to the Korean conflict and Vietnam war. Americans realized our country and freedoms were not endangered in either conflict, that they were blunder wars.

Conscription also became unpopular in the 1950s and 1960s because of the gross inequities in who got drafted, in who wound up actually serving, and in who wound up actually fighting and dying. Our own Vice President Dick Cheney is a poster boy for those gross inequities, having blown off someone who asked back in the '60s why he wasn't serving by saying he had "other priorities."

Yeah, right. So did a bunch of people who relocated to Canada.

I will also put in a good word for the millions of conscripts in the Red Army in WWII. They fought ferociously, relentlessly and with steady success, even though unevenly led and supplied. There aren't so many of those veterans left now, and the ones remaining are often frail. But if you ever meet some, I suggest you keep your thoughts about what awful soldiers conscripts are to yourself. They just might have one good fight left in them.

phnxbmed wrote:

"The current military is more highly educated than their civilian peers."

Prove it.

"Without exception military leaders are against the draft as it will reduce the effectiveness of the fighting force that we have."

Prove it.

"But then that would be in line with the democrat objective of evening the playing field for our enemies."

What a despicable piece of work, hiding behind the anonymity of a made-up name, charging anyone not in agreeement with your politics and ideology wants to aid our enemies. You have no intelligent argument, just hatefulness.

phnxbmed, don't you change a thing. That attitude and approach got your pols the election results they richly deserved. So you keep doing what you're doing.

First off, Rangle is a race-baiter. He started this stuff before, and it then was quieted down, as he was shown to be wrong, in that the military is one of middle class, intelligent men and women,
who were "volunteers". He wanted to get this going again, to spite those he deemed were not being included in the war--rich congress people's
children, etc. (guess that would include his, or his grandchildren too?) And, specifically, he is trying to yet further 'divide the country into arguing with each other that the poor, black, are the ones unfairly being drafted to fight-George Bush's War'. You can just see the wheels being put into motion, to start further divisiveness, that the Dems have done since the DAY that P.Bush took office. They are all about "sniping, lying,
dividing, smearing to win elections(tho it seems that 'moderate Dems are the ones who made it into office, and that leaves out the "radical/leftists-
Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, Kennedy, Rangle") and attack people personally. It has worked....but, at what cost. Don't you think that Pelosi etal, are really 'in the spotlight now', and other than the
get the troops home mantra, they have little else in the way of plans---Plans that they incidentally
will take credit for, that were Already Being Put Into Effect. But nonetheless, they Will take the credit for it, as usual. It is only when the GOP,
stands up to show they can fight back(exposing some of the Dems, less than stellar members(Reid,
involved in the land deal he conveniently forgot to report-Hastings, who is a convicted criminal).
But with RangleBaiter, Pelosi(who will have to be tied to Hillary) out there, let them fight among themselves as they ARE, and WILL, in trying to eat
each other, because.....the public is watching and
listening(and will probably be sorry that it ever got these Dems in a power position) Sooooo the next faux paux by Pelosi,will be entertaining and
interesting to watch.

"Right now we've got an military which is, man for man, the best ever fielded in the history of the world..."

Then why can't we beat a rag-tag group of "dead-enders"?

Because we don't have enough troops.

How can we get more?

By drafting them.

Of course you're right--this is all a political ploy and will never go anywhere. The country wouldn't stand for it. But that's the problem. Bush simply doesn't have the balls to send enough troops to actually win the war. And he's too stubborn to ever ask for that kind of sacrifice.

Thus it continues...

Al-Qaeda's ‘best assets’ prime UK timebomb

Telegraph.co.uk: British Muslims volunteering to fight against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are being sent back to Britain to become al-Qaeda "sleeper" agents, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

MI5 agents believe that young Asian men, who have been trained to take part in the so-called "global jihad" in al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are now regarded as too valuable an asset to be used fighting British and American troops.

MI5 and MI6 are working on the assumption that they are being ordered to return to their communities in Britain with instructions to establish secret, autonomous cells and to conduct independent terrorists operations without any direct input from al-Qaeda's high command.

Security sources claim that al-Qaeda is unlikely to send a British passport holder to his death as a suicide bomber in Iraq when he would be far more valuable as a "sleeper" in Britain.

MI5 fears that it is impossible to estimate how many British Muslims have attended training camps over the past decade or how many are back in the UK planning attacks.

[..]Last week Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, gave warning that it was just a matter of time before Britain was attacked with a chemical, biological or radiological weapon.

She said that up to 1,600 terrorists in the UK were involved in 30 "priority one" plots.

*What every non-Muslim (unbeliever) should know about Islam.*

From Answering-islam.org (click "U", then "Unbelievers"):
UNBELIEVERS: The Qur'anic attitude towards those who do not believe its message

The Qur'an has a wide range of imagery and insults for those who refuse to believe in Islam. They are likened to cattle (camels, cows, sheep), a goat-herd, dogs, asses, etc. (cf. [Qur'an] Surah 25:44, 2:171, 7:175-177, 62:5), but in some passages it is much worse than that:

According to the Koran, a non-Muslim is less than nothing: "To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" ([Qur'an] Sura 8:55). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" ([Qur'an] Sura 5:33). And, since the Muslims are realists, they take into account circumstances and make, accordingly, temporary peace or war: "Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" ([Qur'an] Sura 47:35).

*Islam has the clear rule that a Muslim is not to be killed for murder of a non-Muslim:*

Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50; cf. Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111; Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283)

SW,

I beg your pardon; when did I say anything disparaging about individual conscript soldiers? I say that conscription is asinine, not conscript soldiers...how can a conscript be judged on that anyways? He's forced in to the military.

But you are also ignoring some rather relevant facts: the cutting edge of the US ground forces were the Marines, the Rangers and the airborne units...and while a particular soldier might have been drafted in to the military, you then had to volunteer to become a paratrooper...you also had to volunteer to be a pilot, or an aircrewman...you had to volunteer to be on submarines.

We should have had a three or four million man military of Ranger-quality troops rather than have a few Ranger, Marine and paratroop units continually leading the way because the mass of conscripts simply lacked the training to go in first. The reason we didn't have three or four million such troops is because we conscripted 12 million...who all had to be armed, all had to be trained, and all had to be maintained...at a direct cost to the ability to get the very best to the front with the very best equipment in plentiful supply.

In war, quality is always superior to quantity. Those Russian conscripts - certainly, they fought hard...had to: NKVD troops had machine guns trained on them, and would mop up their family back home if they refused to advance. In the end, by process of elimination, Russia ended the war with about 3 million first rate troops...they lost at least 10 million combatant dead, however, so that wasn't the best way to get a first class army. Had Stalin's inhuman dictatorship been, well, not an inhuman dictatorship, Russia could have won that war by the middle of 1942.

Curiously enough, it as DeGaulle who first envisioned what the modern military should look like - as an obscure midlevel officer in the 30's, he worked out a plan to replace France's ponderous conscript army with an all-volunteer, highly trained, highly mobile, armoured force of 100,000 men...a force which, had it been created, would have ripped the Germans to shreds in 1940 (it was the German mobile, armoured force of about 100,000 men which did the trick in 1940 - but France had better tanks, so a French 100,000 man force facing off with a German 100,000 man force would likely have carried the day, with a modicum of good generalship).

Never again should we conscript anyone - if we can't get enough volunteers to fight a war, then we shouldn't fight a war. Right now, the military is doing a fine job and the leadership repeatedly states that they have enough troops to do the job.

You might want to check out this video: Charlie Rangle Using Military Draft For Political Gain

only when there is a choice to serve is there any moral value in service.

So the Israeli army holds no moral value? Why do you hate and denigrate our allies, Noonan?

For much of the Moonbat Left, the issue is not one of fighting "them" over there or here. They are simply in denial about the threat posed by the jihadi and seek simpler explanations like "Bush did 9-11 as a pretext to invade Iraq" or "the Mossad tricked Osama into doing 9-11 in order to put Islam under a bad light", and so on.