OF course Democrats have better plans. Just ask John Kerry. He had lots of plans. He never told us what they were but he had them.

Posted by DADvocate at August 24, 2006 05:34 PM

But --- but he DID have plans, they just changed from hour to hour.

George, I had to link this one, many thanks.

Posted by Seth at August 24, 2006 08:51 PM

Knowing what I know and expect now, I'll have no choice but to hold my nose and vote Republican again in the fall. The other alternative is too scary and dangerous for our country.--Woody

Without some way to slap the Republican Party about the head and shoulders until it SMARTENS UP, this is surely but a short-term solution to the problem.

For the last 2 years (at least) the Republicans have been relying on the sheer madness of the opposition to appear the more attractive of the choices.

This is suicidal. Frankly it simply won't work much longer. I doubt it will work in 2006 simply because the rot is so widespead and oblivious though the 'people' are, they are ticked over gasoling prices and will blame the incumbents.

The only thing the Republicans have going for them is ---- We're NOT Democrats!!

Facing an existential enemy, massive social pressures, and an ongoing energy problem, and these are the choices on offer.

Sigh.

Posted by dougf at August 24, 2006 10:11 PM

Woody --

I tend to believe that even though our friends on the right side of the aisle are becoming more questionable by the day (I was gonna say "minute", but that would sound too Kerryistic), we at least have a pretty good idea that they won't abandon reason altogether.

I can't say the same for the folks on the left, their contributions to the dialogue on the GWOT have been everything from "this is all our fault!" to what can only be delivered to Islamists from a kneeling position -- imagine Monica Lewinski as our "ambassador to Islam", LOL. I wonder how many rials the dreaded "stained burka" would fetch at auction. Pernt being, the Dems aren't stable enough to be trusted with our security, as they have already more than shown their Frenchness on the subject.

They want to surrender first chance they get -- which would be the instant we voted them the majority power to do so.

Posted by Seth at August 25, 2006 02:39 AM

Talk about having to choose the lesser of two evils - Wow! Every time I think about it, I get this feeling of hopelessness and frustration. Whatever happened to the party of the individual, small government, and the Constitution? I guess it's long gone like most everything else. Sigh.

Posted by Vulgorilla at August 25, 2006 07:30 AM

I'm with you guys.

We saw the reason for the war, and it was legitimate; but thanks to the "Just War" theory (the officially adopted theory of "war ethics" taught at West Point, our other war colleges, our universities, and considered proper by politicians and policy-makers in the State Department and the Department of Defense), we paid the inevitable price - we DID NOT WIN.

"Not winning" isn't a neutral term. It means "losing." In fact, thanks to the "Just War" theory, we have neither declared nor won a war since WWII. A formal declaration of war carries with it certain obligations that are excluded by the "Just War" theory - which explains why it is supported by our "un-friends" in the U.N.

I think that THAT - our refusal (not our inability) to WIN - is the reason that 60% of the population (and growing) is now questioning the war.

Remember right after 9/11? There was practically NO objection to going into Afghanistan, and there wasn't all that much - still a significant minority - when we went into Iraq, especially when we did so well, getting into Baghdad right out of the gate.

The opposition was able to make inroads only when it became apparent that we weren't going to wrap things up; when we found out that the reason for not wrapping things up wasn't a matter of being incapable, it was a matter of poor planning and execution, THAT was when we began to have doubts about whether it was worth being there. When both Afghanistan and Iraq adopted constitutions based on sharia, we began to wonder what the hell was going on - what had we fought for?

It's not that we've all turned into wimps, it's just that we don't want to sacrifice the blood of our loved ones and our hard-earned money on the altar of the PC. The "Just War" theory is the PC version of warfare; it is a theory which dooms any party following its principles in warfare to utter failure. It was, in fact, designed that way, as a means of preventing nations from engaging in war as a way of settling disputes.

Just as PC has devastated our domestic policies, it has devastated our foreign policies, including any reasonable policy of self-defense. Most recently, it was what permitted the defeat of Israel at the inferior hands of Hezbollah.

If Islam would adopt the "Just War" theory, we wouldn't have to worry all that much - but they aren't willing to play by those idiotic rules.

We have a choice; we either get on the stick and elect someone to the Oval Office who "gets it" re: the nature and ambitions of Islam, and who will appoint like-minded Cabinet members, or we shall be overwhelmed by the Caliphate.

We don't have to give up a morally valid position in order to win over Islam; on the contrary, we must replace the immoral, self-sacrificial (and by "sacrifice," I mean "give up something of greater value for something of lesser value") position that the "Just War" theory requires us to adopt.

Reality always wins in the end.

Posted by cubed at August 25, 2006 03:14 PM

Wow, very well said!

Posted by Seth at August 25, 2006 05:57 PM

Just War theory is fine when interpreted correctly. Most people of the left who advocate its use have very convenient interpretations of what it means. For example, the believe the justly constituted authority can only mean the UN, not a sovereign nation - or at least, not this sovereign nation.

Elections are nearly always about the lesser of two evils in America. That's not necessarily a bad thing, actually. Countries with more political parties, where you can vote for someone you more fully agree with, are not usually more stable governments.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 26, 2006 09:11 PM

GM,

How about your medical check-up? Seems to be everything all right.

I have posted some articles about this issue on my post. Certainly, Democrats are doing well in attacking current Iraq policy, and draw voters' attention. However, they fail to show feasible alternatives.

Regarding Lieberman's defeat, I cannot predict its effect on the Democratic Party. Just I can say Robert Kagan deplored that the Democrats lost the only honest and competent candidate.

They can manage 2006, but not certain for 2008.

Posted by Shah Alexander at August 27, 2006 09:05 AM