[Democrats] have finally figured out they can’t pull the rug out from under the troops in the field, particularly when they are winning. Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea… There isn’t much time… the extremes have been baring their boobs in anger…

Kind of a fun read.

Now get this remark:

Polls suggest that Bush has had some degree of success in linking Islamic militants in Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist movement.

“The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

“Our side”, that the Democrats are on, that wants to deny we are fighting al Qaeda militants in Iraq, and that opposes the Administration (and America) in defeating them? What side would that be?

By basic logic, wouldn’t it have to be the side of… umm… al Qaeda?

Gotcha.

Of course, what torrentprime never explains is why, despite his bashing Clinton for refusing to deploy troops to the Middle East or take military action to fight al-Qaeda, the absence of troops seemingly did nothing to stop al-Qaeda from raising prodigious amounts of money and recruiting literally thousands of zealots.

The difference is now that our troops are there catching and killing them.

The issue here is simple; al-Qaeda will recruit and raise money whether we are there or not.

The question is whether or not we run and hide, or whether we proactively attack them while doing it.

Like Clinton SHOULD have done in Afghanistan.

Of course!
When the right is struggling the more absurd they become. See any post by NDT for clarification.

“First of all, the surge IS Bush’s new policy. Why can’t Democrats just be happy that we have turned a corner in Iraq because of the President’s orders?”* The surge is a military policy. It’s telling that you act as if it’s a complete solution all on its own, since that one-dimensional attitude has been the hallmark of both the war in Iraq and the statements of its defenders. There is more required. And since every failure of the Iraqi government has been met with no response from the Bush admin except to send more troops and more money, Casey’ statement simply acknowledges the distance between a military solution and an Iraq solution, something Bush (and his defenders) don’t even seem able to admit exists.

* How many corners have we turned now, anyway?

“The security and stability have to come first before there even can be national unity… To ignore those truths is to ignore reality.”
GP: The “national unity” didn’t exist before we got there; the country was held together by a repressive dictatorship run by sadistic thugs. Are we going to take their place? And if not, we do what? Militarily force “peace” on the country, at the cost of American lives and increased anti-American sentiment and AQ recruiting world-wide, in order to give the Iraqis… what exactly? A chance to settle centuries-old feuds? “Breathing room” to hash out the religious and sectarian differences that cause them to drill holes in each other’s heads every night? How long do you think that will take (consider the ME’s track record at resolving religious and cultural differences at the negotiating table)? Do you see anything in the Bush admin’s approach to Iraq that acknowledges these needs, let alone has made attempts to solve them and made progress on them?

1) You’re silly for thinking we cna beat al Qaeda in Iraq. Cuckoo!
2) You’re HITLER!!! We must IMPEACH you!!!
3) Jeez, drama queen, you’re only saying what we all said first.

BTW, Bush’s approval number has gone up to 40% while the Pelosi/gReid Congress of Corruption is still racking up record lows.

Surge On!

Still, it is comforting to see America succeeding to the point where even anti-Americans such as the Democrats must acknowledge it.

When we win, I don’t want to have to mop up the exploding Democrat heads.