Second, in response to your query as to what the war in Iraq has to do with American freedom, it's plain and simple.
For decades the United States followed your logic that we shouldn't intervene in other sovereign nations to eradicate state sponsored terrorism.
We looked at war as conventional war, the way it's been fought for centuries.
Finally 9/11 made it crystal clear that our biggest danger is no longer from nation-states, per se, it's from non-state actors and the rogue states which shelter them.
It's unlikely that Saddam would ever have attacked us directly.
Instead, he was supporting terrorists who did attack us, as proxies.
As did the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And that's no longer something we can continue tolerate.
You may wish to continue to tolerate being attacked by proxies. In fact, I have no doubt that you would prefer this, based on earlier conversations.
But you're outvoted.
The Democrats who carried the day for your party in November 2006 were not the anti-war crowd. They were, on the whole, the old kind of Democrat, the ones who recognize that your freedom to shop until you drop is paid for by American blood.
They may not be the majority in the Democrat party, in fact, I am pretty sure they are not.
But the American people that voted for them didn't all vote for the Berkeley crowd, they voted locally.
Jim Webb, for example, was a Marine, a highly decorated combat veteran, and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He's no Nancy Pelosi, and no Harry Reid.
If Jim Webb is the future of the Democrat party, that will be interesting.
And then there's Joe Liebermann. If any election demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the anti-war crowd, it's Joe.;^) |
