Friday, October 24, 2008

Don't miss these: 10/24/08 — cheer and questions

Here's some worth noting as we finish our week. I'll see if I can find anything cheerful, and I want to ask some questions.
  • Another article proving what a horrible drag Sarah Palin is on the ticket. (So I don't lose anybody again, that's a satirical remark.) Particularly note the first paragraph. It's cheering.
  • BTW, given all the disastrous gaffes and revelations flowing from his lips every time he does that thing he does with his mouth — I've been missing all the polls on Joe Biden. You know: what people think of him, whether they trust him, whether they think he's ready to be president, whether they think he's smart, whether he makes them more or less likely to vote for the most unaccomplished and unqualified person ever to run for the Presidency on a major party ticket. Given Biden's proven record as a plagiarist, dead-wrong on foreign policy, and all; and given the insistence (even among our drive-bys) in an objective MSM, surely there are as many polls on him as on Palin. So... can someone give me a link? On which subject....
  • I'm no great fan of Patrick Buchanan, but he is dead-on right about chokingly-thick MSM bias in coverage of Biden vs. Palin.
  • I'm also not Charles Krauthammer's biggest fan. But today he makes a devastating case for McCain over Obama. Every sentence is like one of George Foreman's flying-refrigerator punches. I'll assert this: if you read that through, if you understand what he's talking about, and if you still even seriously consider Obama — it won't be because of the issues. Unless you're hopelessly on the wrong side of them, and never would have genuinely considered McCain, anyway, no matter what you tell people. If clarity makes you cheery, this will do it.
  • You might be a McCain/Palin Supporter if.... might give a rueful chuckle or two.
  • There are several ways of characterizing Peter Robinson's expression of Thomas Sowell's troubling reflections of the impact (brace yourself) President Obama would likely have. One would be: the end of America, as conceived at its founding. Mine would be: the triumph of a fundamentally anti-Christian vision. The Founders constructed our government on the Biblical recognition of man's sinfulness; hence the checks and balances. Obama's vision fundamentally ignores that truth. The long-range consequences, I say in all seriousness, could be disastrous beyond our ability even to imagine. OK, sorry; that's not cheery.
  • Neither cheery nor a question: Michelle Malkin is keeping up on the possibility that the attack-story I featured yesterday is a fake. My point stands either way. It will be big, big news only if it's fake.
  • A question: tell me the difference between these two MSM headlines: McCain seeks to portray Obama as an extreme liberal; and Obama rebuts McCain on tax plan.
  • Still on the MSM, and a question: why is it big news that McCain's brother called 911 about traffic, but it's never been big news that Obama's half-brother lives in a hut on less than a dollar a month?
  • Obama mocks McCain's war injuries again. Well, wouldn't that be the way it would be reported if the MSM were as virulently in the tank against him as they are for him
  • The young lady who told of being attacked by an Obama supporter admits it was a hoax. Sad, sick, stupid, and wrong. Malkin was right. (Now, I'm thinking, it will be big news.)
  • An Obama presidency will assure the perpetration of more abortions. Compare this and this, and figure it out.
  • Very funny and creative video. Be warned: one naughty word, one naughty suggestion, and some hip-wiggling.


Fred Butler said...

Krauthammer? According to one commenter, I thought he was a "McCain made a colossal mistake picking Palin" hand wringer?

DJP said...

Yes, I think you're right.

But even Krauthammer isn't fool enough to hand the nation over to Obama for such a lame reason.

donsands said...

"Ms. Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, invoked native son Joe Namath's upset win with the New York Jets in the 1969 Super Bowl"

I was sick for a week after that game. I was a 16 year old diehard Baltimore Colt's fan, and Broadway Joe beat a team with Johnny Unitas, who only played the second half, and Don Shula as the head coach.

Thanks for all the great links. Have agreat weekend.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

I don't understand why such a big deal is being made about Biden's remarks. Wasn't President Bush tested shortly after he became president by 9/11? The point that should be taken is what Mike Blomberg said that while the next president is preparing for crises A, B, and C, the world will hit him with D, E, and F.

Every new president is tested. None come into office with the experience to deal with an international crisis. That's why they have advisors. I have not decided who to vote for yet but if I were president when a crisis came I would rather have Joe Biden advise me than Sarah Palin.

CR said...

Lt. Pratt:I have not decided who to vote for yet but if I were president when a crisis came I would rather have Joe Biden advise me than Sarah Palin.

I don't understand why you would rather have Joe Biden advise you? You can have all the experience you want, but if your judgment is wrong, that experience is useless. Do you understand Lt. Pratt, that if you are wrong on the issues, then it doesn't matter what experience you have?

John McCain will not need Sarah Palin to advise her on international affairs, but I think your swipe against her is unfair. The difference between her and Joe and Biden and Barack Obama is huge, because Biden and Obama are wrong on the issues.

While Palin does not have the experience of McCain, if something were to happen to McCain, she would have the right judgment on the issues because she will pick the right people to advise her. Not only are Obama and Biden wrong on the issues, but they will pick the wrong people to advise them.

Rachael Starke said...

Okay, the Palin rally piece has made it the fifth or sixth day in a row that I have shed tears over something you posted. I don't know how much more I can take. :) Loved it.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

CR- Have you ever been in the military? If you have not I don't see how you can say Biden is wrong on the foreign affairs. If you mean he is wrong about Iraq then you are entitled to that opinion. I am retired military and I believe Iraq was a huge blunder, one someone like Joe Biden would not have made.

I have studied Joe Biden's record and service on the Senate committee and I found it to be outstanding. It seems like you want to diminish the service to this country of Biden because you hold a different opinion. It also seems that you praise Sarah Palin because she shares your Christian faith.

Neither is enough for me to vote for either ticket. I mean, I won't vote for Obama just because I think Biden has the foreign affairs experience nor will I vote for McCain because Sarah Palin shares my faith. There has to be another, more compelling reason for me to choose either of these tickets. If one does not arise I will not vote.

CR said...

Lt. Pratt: If you have not I don't see how you can say Biden is wrong on the foreign affairs.

Well, he was wrong 20 years ago when he tried running against George Bush 1. Biden said they same old mantra that's being put forth today. After 8 years of Ronald Reagan, he talked about how rotten the world thought us then, how horrible our reputation was in the world and that we needed to get the respect back. So, 20 years ago, he was wrong then, and he's wrong now. Do a google search of his ads 20 years ago.

And now that you mention it, yeah, he was wrong about Iraq also. When Gen. Petraeus said last year that they had a sense of tactical momentum even though we were still a long ways from total success, Biden's response was, "He's dead, flat wrong." Biden also suggesting partioning Iraq. He was dead wrong.

Oh, and regarding your comment about Iraq being a huge blunder and Biden would not have made the same "mistake", here is what Biden said about the WMDs in Iraq, remember he voted for it: "the point is they turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. They cataloged them. This was not some Cheney, you know, uh pipe dream. This was in fact cataloged."

So, I don't know, Lt. Pratt, you said you've studied Biden's record. I don't know how you missed this. He was wrong about Reagan 20 years ago. Apparently, he would have made the same decision to go into Iraq like President Bush did and he was wrong about the surge in Iraq.

Maybe you could perhaps share with us why specifically you think Biden's judgment is outstanding?

Andrew said...

Lt Pratt,
Doesn't the life issue remove an Obama vote out of the realm of possibility?

I agree that 2 Bible-believing Christians can, for instance, have 180-degree opposite views on the Iraq war, with a clear conscience.

However with the murder of unborn children, this is not the case. Ther is no wiggle room or uncertainy about what God has said about human life. Children are made in His image and life originates at conception in the womb. The Word of God and politics intersect quite vividly at this one point.

...and Obama has made it clear which side he stand on.

This is a dealbreaker for me. I cannot vote for Obama. What about you? Why is this issue not a dealbreaker?

CR said...

I agree with Andrew, Lt. Pratt, that Obama's stance on abortion should be a deal breaker for you on voting for Obama, especially, if you look at the impact of the federal judiciary.

RC Sproul, your pastor, at St. Andrews Chapel has done an excellent series on abortion and I would commend that to you.

Andrew said...

I like the protectionist view of foreign policy a la Pat Buchanan. Stay at home, protect our nation, secure our borders, stay out of other people's business.

Defending the world's oppressed peoples from bullying and tyranny is a noble cause. But it always turns out to be foolish in the end. This supposed "role" of government is not explicitly granted by God in the Bible.

DJP said...

That's a good 9/10 mentality, and used to be mine as well.

The game-board has changed. If we don't change our game, we lose big.

That was the lesson of 9/11.

Mesa Mike said...

A whole bunch of McCain yard signs were stolen up and down the street I live on a week or so ago, including one from my yard. No big deal. I just went to the campaign HQ and got a bunch more for me and the neighbors.

I suppose somewhere, some Obama fanboi is complaining that Obama signs are missing too. Just part of the election season, I suppose. It always happens, every time.

Fred Butler said...

Did you see this one guys:
Obama as a War President

JTW said...

Michael Powell (Colin's son) endorses McCain...all I can hear are crickets and something about Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

Forgive me if this has already been posted.

Andrew said...

Here's my question I have then:
It seems we need our military at home to secure our borders. At it stands today, practically anyone can get into Canada and our border with them is porous.
The Mexican border is not much of an obstacle either. What is the estimate... 3,000 per day?

So my question is... shouldn't that be the 1st priority before hunting down terrorist overseas? Unfortunately it seems these two objectives are mutually exclusive because of the resources and manpower needed to secure the border.

And then followup: if we do not have the willpower and guts to follow through and actually win a confrontation with terrorists, should we really be seeking them out? The whole "we can't shoot until we're fired upon first" mentality is not going to defeat Al-Queda

DJP said...

Yeah, I think we should seal up the border. And yeah, we shouldn't start anything we don't mean to finish.

But that's a totally different question that protectionism, which I thought was what we were starting to discuss.

JackW said...

Andrew, the purpose of a military is to break things and kill people, not babysit our borders, that's a different department. Our first priority is hunting down terrorist overseas and otherwise and we've been doing a real good job of it.

Mesa Mike said...

Tinfoil hat mode for a minute here:

For which of the following reasons did the young lady commit the hoax?

1) She wanted to tar Obama supporters,
2) She wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the media, (looks like she did, by the way -- if anybody outside the BibChr coterie even notices.)
3) Obama supporters bribed her to do it -- knowing the lie would be exposed -- in order to tar McCain supporters.
4) She just wanted attention, or
5) Some other reason.

Dan, I apologize in advance if this is not appropriate here. I'm just curious how this will be in the general blogosphere.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Andrew- The abortion issue is important to me. I work 10 hours a week in a crisis pregnancy center with women considering abortion. My wife works there 20 hours a week. I went to McCain's rally and he said very little about the pro-life issues I care about. I'm not convinced he will actually be pro-life if elected.

CR- I only go to St. Andrews once a month. I've listened to Rev. Sproul.

CR said...

Lt. Pratt,

I would recommend reading Between Two Worlds blog on the abortion issues. It includes Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act which would include cutting federal funding for crisis pregnancy clinics. FOCA would also make it difficult for doctors based on conscience to not refer patients to abortionists. Justin Taylor doesn't really manage his blog so some of the commentators are from the far left kook fringe, but his articles are great.

I'm also sure you are aware of the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed 4 years ago and immediately stayed by the federal courts but upheld by the Supreme Court just by one vote last year. (Remember that this partial birth abortion ban was passed twice by Congress during the Clinton Presidency, but he vetoed it twice.) You'll recall that President Bush's appointment of two justices (including the replacement of Justice O'Connor which was crucial for the partial birth ban).

I can understand your apprehension on what McCain will do. But we KNOW what Obama will do. We are living with abortion right now in our country because of a Supreme Court decision made over 35 years ago. A President Obama would appoint federal judges that probably would take us back and make the partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional.

Anyway, read the articles and then tell us if you can still vote for Obama.

CR said...

One last thing, Lt. Pratt. You mentioned, again, that you were not convinced whether McCain would be pro-life. I would ask that you would look at pro-life's organizations rating of McCain. And again, McCain's choice of Gov. Palin is signficant. This is a woman who lives the pro-life position and I'll just copy and paste what I've already written on another meta:

Krauthammer (one of the non-enthusiastic supporters of Gov. Palin) makes a great point why there is so much loathing and hatred of Gov. Palin by the left and it's related to the abortion issue. And that is, her decision at her age with four other children to have a Down's syndrome child and as Joseph Epstein wrote in Feminist Circles if this is not about abortion then what's it about?

Krauthammer goes on to say that liberals look at Palin as a back room hick who for religious reasons (of course we understand that it was her faith not religious reasons - Krauthammer is a brilliant conservative but an atheistic evolutionist) went ahead and had a child that they (liberals) would never have. Deep underneath is a self-loathing of this by feminists knowing that what she did is virtuous and a generous act that they (liberals) would never have undertaken and it is an affront and silent rebuke to them.

We should be excited for Gov. Palin, and despite the MSM's deceptions, she is qualified to be President - again, let me say, she is more qualified to be President when you contrast her to Obama and Biden, because Obama and Biden are wrong on the issues. I think we should also be excited for Palin because she is a professing Christian. How many times have Christians prayed for Christians to be in high places in office and especially to have those who don't buckle under pressure to give a defense of the faith like some we know.

So, to cap, you have Biden's wrong decisions 20 years ago, you have Biden's decision of he would have gone to war based on what he said in Iraq. You have is wrong decision on the surge. You also have his statement on international crisis. The issue is not that every new President is tested, sure they are in some way. But what Biden said, was that because of his youth and experience, Obama will be tested. You have, if you read those articles, Obama's pro-abortionist and pro-infanticide positions. You have a vice-presidential candidate with more executive experience than Obama (don't forget that Obama became US Senator in 2004 and he's been running for President for 20 months - that's about all he has done). And we have opportunity, given whose running, a chance, maybe for the first time in US history, to elect a Christian who actually lives the life.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

CR- I'll take your no response to my question about military service as a no that you have not served in uniform. Have you served your country in any capacity? Have you given any of the time the Lord has given you to working with women who are considering abortion? I ask because it is one thing to sit behind a computor and give opinions and a different thing to go out and make a difference. If you have I commend you on your service.

Joe Biden- his ads of 20 years ago mean no thing to me. Why? Because they were in the midst of a campaign such as this one where politicians exaggerate and lie. It used to be the democrats who did most of that and now it seems to be republicans doing that. My guess is whichever side finds itself on the short end of the polls lies more in an effort to catch up.

I have dinner guests. I'll post later.

Rachael Starke said...

Lieutenant -

Sir, regarding the abortion issue - I respect the service you and your wife offer in that capacity as equal to the service you have offered your country. For myself, I was providentially stranded yesterday at a community pregnancy center when my car broke down in the parking lot after I went there to donate my girls' baby furniture. While I waited, I was able to have a great conversation with the director about ways I could be more involved beyond just giving money and stuff (which we have done faithfully since our children were born 7 years ago). I'm convinced that it's no coincidence that no matter which candidate wins, the abortion issue will be once again front and center, either because of Senator Obama's commitment to sign the most pro-abortion legislation ever written, or because of Trig Palin spending several years growing and thriving in the Vice President's mansion.

My question for you is this - what role does the legacy that the first black president or female vice-president leaves when their term in office ends have in your decision? Both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have said and done some pretty significant things to indicate what that legacy might be. Is that a factor?

CR said...

So, if that means, I don't do certain things, then I can't comment on issues?

I'm personally offended by your ad hominens, but I'll go ahead and address them even though it has nothing to do with this. I have never served in the military. My father served in the military for 10 years including the Korean War. 3 of his friends got blown to smithereens in a tank formation, yet he survived. Because of his dark skin color my father was also discriminated during shore leave. He couldn't go to the same places as his buddies. I think what little I know about his military service counts for something. But even if I didn't, that would not preclude me from commenting. He use to take me to air shows and I think he wanted me to join the military, and I considered it 15 years ago, but decided against it. I'm very proud of the service he did because South Koreans are not starving and suffering under the regime of Kim Jong Il. Even though we didn't go into Iraq for the purpose of freeing them, I think many Iraqis 10 to 15 years down the road will be better off than they were under the regime of the Husseins, that is, if Obama is not elected and he doesn't screw things up. You must know that most people have not served in the military and if you know that, why are you here asking of our opinions if it's required that we serve in the military?!

As far as me giving time to the Lord. Again, I'm offended, and I'm also uncomfortable of having to say anything. I have not worked with women on abortion. I have been involved in my church with evangelism and also training others how to evangelize - again, I'm really uncomfortable having to say this, because I really don't feel I should defend anything or say anything because I don't want your praise nor anyone else's praise, all I want is the praise of the Lord. Again, probably a number of Christians have not served directly with working with women on abortions, I would imagine if I asked you in what capacity you have worked on in other socials issues, there would be some lacking. Why are you here asking for our opinion if we're required to work with women who are considering having abortions?

So, you have your praise from men, Lt. Pratt, for your military service and you have your praise from men, about you and your wife's service for working in crisis pregnancy centers. You want to be very careful in touting this because if you get your praise from men, there will be no praise left from God.

I really tried giving you and defending you by giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that you're ready to tackle the issues because you want to ignore Biden's bad judgment. I will comment no further on anymore ad hominens from you.

candy said...

Lt. Pratt. I hope I am mistaken but like the young lady who carved a B into her cheek for a weird political statement, I perceive that somehow you are duplicitous in your seemingly innocent confusion towards the political climate. Are you snickering while you post comments? I wonder. Because I find it hard to believe that a man of your so called caliber can have questions about who to vote for, not that we have the greatest choices, but because of what Obama stands for in his political views. Seriously. So, as you engage in your "I just don't know about the internet, and even though my wife and I work at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, we just don't know what to do!!!", just doesn't fly with me. My mother was an Army cryptographer in Germany post WWII and even though it was a tedious job, they expected a sort of intelligence in the military back then.

Steve Lamm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lieutenant Pratt said...

CR- My sincerest apologies if you mistook my questions for ad hominem attacks. They were not directed as attacks but merely questions about your background. When I first came to this blog people questioned my authenticity and I provided all the information requested.

I did not mean to imply that you must have served in the army to comment but that you have very strong opinions about the military and what it is for one with no experience. I lived it everyday for 25 years. I sent men to their deaths in vietnam. I made decisions I regret. So if it seems like these are tough issues for me that may explain some of the reason.

I am not seeking praise from men and that is offensive to suggest so. You have twisted the meaning of that verse from scripture. I'm not boasting about what I have done and what I do. My hope was to encourage you to do likewise because you seem so passionate about this issue. Instead you became defensive. It has been my experience that people who are passionate about something are usually very active in working toward the goal they seek.

Candy- If Colin Powell, a man of much higher caliber than I will ever be, could strugle over who to vote for why do you assume it should be easy for me? There is no good choice in this election. I must either vote for a man whom I believe has a reckless streak with a poorly qualified VP or I must vote for a man with little experience with a highly qualified VP.

Race and legacy have no bearing for me. Would I like to see a black president or a female vice president? Of course but only if qualified. Neither of these people is highly qualified.

CR said...

Lt Pratt: I did not mean to imply that you must have served in the army to comment but that you have very strong opinions about the military and what it is for one with no experience.

Lt. Pratt, it's not that you implied I had to serve in order to comment, it's that you said, Have you ever been in the military? If you have not I don't see how you can say Biden is wrong on the foreign affairs. That's an ad hominen Lt. Pratt. You didn't imply it, you said it.

Lt Pratt:I'm not boasting about what I have done and what I do. My hope was to encourage you to do likewise because you seem so passionate about this issue. Instead you became defensive.

I'm looking at the previous posts for statements of encouragement to do likewise what you were doing, I can't find them the Lt. Pratt. I didn't become defensive because of statements of your encouragement (because there were none). I responded to you in the way I did because of your statements when you said unless I was in the military, I can't say Biden is wrong on the issues.

Like I said, when you're ready to discuss the actual issues, I'm all game.

Rachael Starke said...

Lieutenant -

Randy Alcorn's words today say it better than I ever could on the issue of abortion and qualifications...

JackW said...

I am retired military and I agree with CR. LT, with all due respect sir, we both had to go through the awful leadership of Jimmy Carter, are you willing to put the military through that again?

JOYce said...

May this post by Terry at Ornaments of Grace be edifying ~

For Your Consideration

Lieutenant Pratt said...

JackW- Your point is taken, sir. I have great respect for President Carter, as I do for all the presidents I have served. I will not speak ill of a commander in chief but will keep my opinions of his leadership to myself.

CR- We will have to agree to disagree on Biden. I respect his thinking on military and foreign affairs. I think he was wrong on the Iraq War and he knows it. It takes a big man to admit that rather than to hold on to his errors. The war was wrong and still is. You know well that the idea of partitioning Iraq did not originate with Joe Biden but was trumpeted by many conservative thinkers before he picked it up. I remember reading an argument for it in the Journal long before Biden picked it up. There are good arguments on both sides regarding the partition idea. Iraq is not a stable democracy and we have no idea at this time whether it ever will be no matter who wins on November 4th. We must hope that it will become such but no nation before has ever had democracy forced upon it. Every attempt to do so fails to understand the situation on the ground and the ethnic divisions that exist. Iraq is not America and we should not expect that it ever will be.

Andrew said...

Do you think that Iraq could become a stable nation where terrorist organizations do not flourish? That is, a place where terrorists cannot organize freely, recruit, train, disseminate ideology, grow strong, influence the people and develop sophisticated technology to destroy civilians?

I think the future of Iraq lies somewhere between an American-style democracy and an islamo-facist wasteland. There is no need to force Iraq's future into this dichotomy.

Do you agree?

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Andrew- I think that what Iraq ultimately becomes is up to the Iraqi's. Right now there are ethnic and religious divisions pulling it apart while we are trying to push it together. There are some signs of progress but not enough. Women will always be 2nd class citizens, Christians will be persecuted, Sunnis will hate Shiites and vice-versa while the Kurds hate both of them. Does it mean they can't get along? I don't know.

Take a look at our own country. We have two factions and we are darn near to ripping ourselves apart along ideological lines. Republicans call democrats unpatriotic or socialist because they have a different view of how to better the country. Democrats accuse republicans of hypocrisy and race baiting. Our two factions are hard enough to reconcile and we have over 200 years of democracy.

Iraq has three factions based on religion and ethnicity and four years of democracy to go on.

To anticipate your next question I do not think either McCain or Obama will allow Iraq to become the sort of failed state that Afghanistan is. Obama may talk about timelines and pulling out but I have a suspicion that much of that is to persuade the democratic base. Joe Biden and the JCS will have a lot to say about what happens next in this war. That is, if the Obama-Biden ticket is elected.

CR said...

Lt Pratt: I think that what Iraq ultimately becomes is up to the Iraqi's.

This is pre-9/11 thinking and exactly the kind of thinking from democrats in Congress and Obama. We can't just say que sera sera. Iraq is part of a larger picture of an Iranian attempt to defeat us and our allies to establish Iranian rule. Some of these same Iranian leaders who directed Iranian proxy attacks in Iraq are the same leaders who directed attacks for Hezbollah and directs Iranian support for Hamas and directs Iranians’ support for Syria and for Taliban elements that were fighting us and are still fighting us in Afghanistan.

We've dealt a serious blow and tremendous setback to Iran with our Iraqi partners. If we leave Iraq now or too soon, it would be a victory for Iran. To compare the factions of Iraq with tensions here in America is absurd. A faction and destabilization in Iraq will result in more terrorism. Any racial tensions here in America (perceived or real) will not result in home grown terrorism.

If we want a victory on the war on terror, Lt. Pratt and we think we can do that with strategy in Afghanistan alone instead of the continued Sunni alliance which has made it clear that it wants to continue to ally with the US against al-Qaeda, then you are mistaken. Obama wants to prematurely pull troops because he needs to satisfy the far left kook fringe of his base. We need a President that is going to make our country safe, not blindly follow the far left kook fringe his party for political gain.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

CR- Have you gotten enough exercise jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle yet? I said none of the things you attacked. It is easier to destroy a straw man than a real argument.

1) We can not force Iraq to become democratic. This is not pre 9-11 thinking. It is reality. All the alliances in the world with or without McCain at the helm will not guaranty a free and democratic Iraq. If we attempt to impose democracy against the will of the people we will fail.

2) I was not referring to racial tensions in this country. I was referring to the political divisions. We are a closely divided country along idiotlogical lines. We must always remember that we are Americans first and idiotlogs second.

CR said...

Lt Pratt: We can not force Iraq to become democratic. snip snip If we attempt to impose democracy against the will of the people we will fail.

Huh??? Iraq is already a democracy - albeit a very, very, fragile one. The people want a democracy, it's Syria and Iran and al-Qaeda that doesn't want it to be a democracy. We are there to help with the security (which they are already doing of a lot of) because if the democracy does not succeed then the terrorists will use it again for their stomping grounds to flourish. OBL and other terrorist leaders already stated back 3 years ago that Iraq was central to the war on terror and they can make it again if we do not continue to help Iraq.

I wish you would not look at this so myopically and look at this with some kind of vision.