To: frankw1900 who wrote (118592 ) 11/5/2003 3:10:10 PM From: Hawkmoon Respond to Worth reading what this Democrat says about the current state of his party, and in particular a few choice words for the current democratic presidential candidates on their views towards US foreign policy:washingtontimes.com Fortunately, President Bush moved ahead with plans for a regime change in Iraq. I immediately gave him my full support and told a true story to my colleagues on the Senate floor: I guess you could call it a unilateral action," I said. "Or pre-emptive. Perhaps if you had been watching me, you could have even called it bellicose and reactive. I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear. And isn't that what this is all about?" The bluntness with which Churchill spoke about the looming threat of the Soviet Union did not go over well in many quarters. The American media did not want to hear that kind of talk. They called him a "war monger." Even the usually gutsy President Truman denied knowing in advance what was in the speech and suggested Churchill should not have given it. "You don't fight war by blowing rose water through corn stalks," he said. Soft-belly peaceniks believe war is politically pointless and foreign policy like so much fuzzy-feeling social work. I reject that. Sometimes a short war must be fought to prevent a longer war. Sometimes hundreds may die to save thousands. Sometimes the long view of history must be taken. I am fed up with Hollywood weenies like Martin Sheen and Sean Penn making millions of dollars playing soldiers in films like "Apocalypse Now" and "Casualties of War" and then, in real life, giving the finger to those who really wear the uniform. To me, they are lower than a snake's belly, hypocrites at best, all gurgle and no guts.
