Vietnam and Iraq

Devoid of principle, integrity and patriotism, dexterous Democrats are looking to resurrect the sentiments of the Vietnam-era; a period that witnessed the precipitous decline of America’s prestige and power on the world stage. Why would they do such a thing? The answer is fairly straightforward: They believe that their Vietnam antics, treacherous yet highly effective, resulted in the consolidation of their position in power. For them, it’s all about gaining, retaining, expanding and consolidating power. It’s not about defending the national security interests of America. For Democrats, a cause is only worthwhile to the extent that it may tighten their grip on power. If a Republican is in office, national security plays second fiddle to the Democrat’s objective of regaining power. An American loss on a Republican's watch is merely collateral damage, and even a fortuitous turn of events, in the Democrat's insatiable quest to gain power. In the case of Vietnam, liberals, along with their willing accomplices in the media, poisoned the public's resolution to fight to win, hoping to profit from the consequences. And the Vietnam experience proved that if resolve is shattered back home, even the strongest military can be defeated. The Islamic terrorists obviously know this, as they employ the same Fabian tactics against the United States that proved successful in the past, hoping all the while that the liberals of the Vietnam era are the same today. In this, they are correct. Rep. John Murtha, a bloviating Democrat-fossil if ever there was one, was interviewed by the arch-liberal organization moveon.org. Speaking about his Party's plans to eventually tie the hands of the military in Iraq by denying the necessary funds and thus implementing a slow-bleed policy, he said:

"They (our military) won't be able to continue, they won't be able to do the deployment. They -- they won't have the equipment, they don't have the training, and they won't be able to -- to do the -- the -- the work."

This is not the kind of rhetoric that serves to rally a nation to victory. Murtha, perhaps to the frustration of his fellow Democrats for his indiscretion, revealed the ultimate aim of his Party in Congress. If our troops are denied equipment and training, and as a result, "won't be able to do the work," what kind of position would that leave them?

Rep. Murtha

The Vice President recently criticized the cut-and-run strategy of Nancy Pelosi as one that would “validate the al-Qaida strategy.” Pelosi and Democrats alike, as it is well known, are pressuring the President to set a timetable for retreating from Iraq before our objectives have been achieved and the country is stabilized. Pelosi was furious with Cheney’s comments and called the President to vent her frustration. “You can’t question my patriotism!” But Dick Cheney was absolutely correct. The objective of the terrorists in Iraq is to prolong the conflict indefinitely so as to break the resolve of the American public, which would eventually force the president to withdraw troops. We would leave on THEIR terms, not ours, and they would win. What about the Vice President’s comments can Pelosi honestly claim to find so offensive? Cheney merely stated the clear-as-day truth. While she may believe there’s a fine line between the ignominious retreat that she advocates and caving to the terrorist’s modus operandi, the truth is that they are one and the same.