Democratic Party leaders promised a New Direction in Iraq if elected to power in the fall of 2006.  They were elected, President Bush changed the strategy and ordered more troops to Iraq with all new military leaders.  The Democratic Party (which DNC Chairman Dean admitted never even formed a brainstorming committee to create their New Direction in Iraq) complained.  Prior to being elected, the party leaders promised independents, centrists, RINOs and DINOs that the Democrats’ New Direction wouldn’t be an immediate or a full withdrawal.  Immediately after the election, on the heels of the Iraq Study Group’s call for more troops, the Democratic Party leadership called for more troops, but when President Bush answered their call and changed the course in Iraq….Democrats flip flopped.

They went against their pre-election promise that the non-existent New Direction in Iraq plan wouldn’t be an immediate or a full withdrawal.  They changed their post-ISG report calls for more troops and demanded fewer.  Speaker Pelosi quite literally told Brit Hume of FOX News that, ‘when you got to war, you have to go with everything you can, you can’t hold anything back.’  Then a few weeks later, she led the charge in the house to push a forth non-binding resolution against sending more troops; against going to war with everything America had (or at least with more than had been used prior).  Senator Harry Reid who had said before the election that he would support more troops, changed his mind a few weeks after the election and demanded a full, immediate, withdrawal in complete contradiction to the pre-election promises that had helped the party go from a dead heat in polls with Republicans all the way to control of both houses, and that control was-according to Democratic Party leaders-a result of the American people’s desire for change in the Iraq war strategy.

Well, President Bush changed the policy.  Democrats lied, and did not.  They said there’d be no immediate withdrawal.  They said they’d back more troops.  They said they wanted success in Iraq.  After being elected, the called for withdrawal, opposed more troops, and rather than present the expected and promised path to success, Democrats like Sen. Reid declared the war lost.

Adding to the dismay for the party with no plan for Iraq, were the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.  These are Congressional Democrats who took over traditionally conservative/Republican held offices and allegedly lean more to the center and right than the party leadership.  These Congressional Democrats are not as influenced by the party base, and are not likely to keep their jobs unless they can somehow either mislead their voters as was done with the “New Direction in Iraq” bit back in 11/06, OR unless they can show their constituents a laundry list of other accomplishments.

Those other accomplishments are the problem.  Democrats took both houses of Congress, but not with enough seats to override vetoes, and so they’re stuck in the same position that Republican members of Congress were for years.  They can’t get anything passed unless it has bi-partisan support.  That means, the Blue Dog Democrats can’t just tow the party line.  They have to either magically provide a plan for a New Direction in Iraq that leads to success, doesn’t involve complete withdrawal, and has the support of both parties.  Lacking that, the Blue Dogs have to work with Republicans to barter and trade tidbits on legislation that will get it approved by both parties and actually become law.

This week, Blue Dog Democrats began opposing the party leadership and its base by saying in effect, the new course in Iraq has to be followed.  At the same time, it’s been announced that American approval for the Democrats’ Congress is at barely 18% (lower than anytime in recorded history).  Americans approval for the Democrats’ Congress’ handling of the Iraq War is at 3%.  Other polls show that the number of Americans who think invading Iraq was the right decision is actually on the rise.  Meanwhile, President Bush’s traditionally low approval ratings have actually risen back up to their normal pittance, and are holding steady at almost twice the abysmal rating of the Democrats’ Congress.

What happened?!

It’s simple. 

1) DAMMIT!  Things are doing better in Iraq.  Despite the efforts of the mainstream media to cover up and not report on the successes in Iraq, news gets out.  The soldiers send emails home daily.  Since the beginning, there’s been one single constant, steady, and unwavering comment from returning troops to their family and friends, “You guys aren’t getting the right news.  The good that happens over there doesn’t get reported no matter how remarkable it is.”  Since more and more troops have come home and talked about the war, since the traditional media outlets are losing readers and viewers in favor of better and more accessible web-based news, and since truth by its nature gets out…people are realizing that President Bush’s New Direction in Iraq is having making historic success, and there are far more American heroes in Iraq than there are Abu Ghraib morons.

2) Whether it’s a RINO, a DINO, a centrist, an independent, or even a devout follower of the far left side of the Democratic Party, it’s impossible to not realize….you’ve been lied to.  If the Democratic Party really wanted to end the war, they could trade all their agenda to Republicans, authorize more tax cuts, give up and allow privatization of some portion of Social Security, and so forth all in exchange for a Congressional demand to withdraw the forces or get their funding cut.  The party won’t do that.  They value the rest of their socialist agenda more than they do the war.  The first excuse given was that the party had just been elected and needed time to form their New Direction plan (the one they said they had before the election).  Then the leaders told their voters that they had to wait until being sworn in to actually get together.  Then the leaders told their supporters that having been sworn in, it’d take time to actually form a plan (meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders were flocking to Syria to meet with the Syrian President Assad who supports, arms, trains, and equips the insurgents-as many as 80 Al Queda suicide bombers fly to Iraq from his airport every month).  When the Democratic party finally did take action, it was “non-binding,” and other measures were equally impotent from the start.  With each procrastination and excuse, the party lost support, their approval ratings fell, and the Blue Dogs were left in the wind.

3) With the war going better, with the lies becoming clearer, with the excuses being less believable, the last hope for the Democratic Party is their laundry list of accomplishments.  Sadly, despite all the finger-pointing/distraction rhetoric from career politicians like Sen. Levin, or from Presidential wannabes like Sen. Biden, all the efforts to chastise the Iraqi Parliament for failing to pass legislation is clear hypocrisy to the average American.  Those average Americans know all too well that the only legislative body that has accomplished less than the Iraqi Parliament…is the American Congress, and how completely distasteful is it that so many Democrats running for President are on the campaign trail rather than in Washington legislating?  How is ironic is it to hear a New York or an Illinois senator give speeches in Iowa complaining about Iraqi Parliament members going on vacation…while they’re either on the campaign trail themselves or on vacation as well? 

4) Bush is gone.  Yeah, the President’s still in the White House, but after all these years, most Americans realize he’s a lame duck, and every time a Presidential candidate says, “This administration ____ (insert complaint here)!” the American people put their tongue in cheek and ask, “Um, this administration is gone.  Problem solved.  What do you have to offer?  How are YOU gonna do better?”

The American people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer sometimes, but you can only mislead and lie to them so often before an American voter would rather watch American idol rather than yet another pandering, lie-packed speech.  You can only be so hypocritical before the voters decide that they’d rather buy an iPod than send $100 to your campaign.  The war in Iraq is going better.  Bush provided the New Direction in Iraq while Democrats continue on their same course of oppose-oppose-oppose while claiming they want success.

Congressional Democrats are leaving the party line behind.

Polls show the American people are leaving the Democratic Party behind

Bush and Iraq are coming off the table, and Democrats are left with approval ratings so low that even Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi have learned to keep their mouths shut recently.

Since January 2002 Americans and people around the world have heard opponents of the Bush Administration, and genuine opponents of the invasion of Iraq, declare that there were no “ties” between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups.  It’s been said that there were “no ties,” “no evidence of a cooperative relationship,” “no evidence of a collaborative relationship,” even “no evidence of a relationship.”  It’s gotten to the point where the Speaker of the House recently spoke on the floor of Congress and declared that, “

Having parsed all those words and cherry-picked all the quotes from investigations and reports, what does it all mean?

 On March 23, 2007, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Iraq was not part of the Global War on Terror (a term that House Democrats deny altogether).

        “When we do that [adhere to the Bush Administration guidelines for waging war in Iraq-sm], we can bring our troops home. We can redeploy them out of Iraq, and we can turn our attention to the real war on terror in Afghanistan.”

        “A matter of weeks ago I was in Afghanistan with some of our colleagues, and the commander of the coalition forces there told us, flat out, that if we had not taken our attention away from Afghanistan, if we had stayed focused there, the al Qaeda and the Taliban would not have the opportunity that they have there now to make a comeback. That is where the war on terror is. The war in Iraq is a separate war from the war on terror. It is a separate war.” (see note 1 below)

It can clearly be said that one of the reasons people question the depth of any relationship between Saddam’s regime and that of Al Queda (ranging from no relationship to snuggle bunny, hand-holding lovers) is to determine the depth to which the war with Iraq is related to the Global War on Terror; i.e. the fight between the American people and Osama Bin Laden’s Holy Warriors.  A close relationship would suggest that the connection between the invasion and occupation in Iraq is closely related to Osama Bin Laden’s Holy War with the United States, and similarly, a relationship between the two entities that is completely at odds, or otherwise counter to association would suggest that the two “situations” are disassociated; separate.  Closeness of relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda is simply perceived in parallel to the closeness with which the war in Iraq is related to the global war on terror.

Note:

At the time that this article was written, the quoted section of Speaker Pelosi’s floor speech is not available in full on either her Congressional Representative website or the Speaker’s website.  However, through the miracle of internet viral video, her speech can be viewed completely at many websites including YouTube.  Additionally, while the speaker may prefer not to reiterate her claims about the “situation” in Iraq being separate from the “situation” in Afghanistan, her full speech was entered into the Congressional Record and can be viewed there.

UPDATE:
In October 2006, Al Queda in Iraq admitted that it had lost 4000 terrorists in Iraq.  Asked if this was true, the Multi National Forces public affairs officers said they had their number at 7000 Al Queda (not run of the mill insurgents) killed in Iraq between 10/04 and 11/06.  In 1/07 Pres Bush ordered a surge of forces to Iraq.  Since then, MNF claims to have killed 1000-1500 Al Queda (not run of the mill insurgents) terrorists in Iraq EACH MONTH from January to August.  Democratic Party leaders still claim that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.  It's not even a war, not a battlefield.  Speaker Pelosi says it's a "situation" to be resolved.  House and Senate Rules have been modified by Democrats to remove the phrase Global War on Terror from legislation.  The cover up and hiding from reality grows higher with each terrorist killed, and each lie created to hide it.

Ok, I had to laugh when just before the midterms Democratic Party leaders tried to breakout of the close polling by assuring Americans that they would not impeach President Bush. Then when they were elected, and the base's hopes were dashed when Speaker to be Pelosi admitted that it was the one campaign promise the Democrats would actually keep.  They really are NOT going to impeach the President. Die hards remained tongue in cheek and winked at each other thinking that once sworn in and once "oversight" became a reality the impeachment of the Worst President Ever(!) would be inevitable.
(Democrats  say impeachment off the table)

Stole a national election-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Stole a midterm election-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated the 911 attacks and killed 3000 Americans-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of investigation by independent and bi-partisan 911 Commission looking into 911 conspiracy-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up and investigation by Dem controlled Senate Intel Com into 911 conspiracy-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up and investigation by 20 different government agencies looking into 911 conspiracy-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Manipulated Intelligence to deliberately start Iraq War causing 20,000 American casualties and 655,000 Iraqis as well as spend/steal $trillions-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of Senate Intel Com Phase I report into Iraq Intelligence manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of Senate Intel Com Phase II report into Iraq Intelligence manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of independent bi-partisan wmd commission investigation into manipulation of Iraq Intelligence -we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of British independent and bi-partisan Hutton Inquiry into Iraq War Intelligence manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of British independent and bi-partisan Butler Commission investigation into Iraq War Intel manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of independent Australian investigation into Iraq War Intelligence and manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of Australian bi-partisan Parliamentary investigation into Iraq War Intelligence and manipulation-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Caused 4 hurricanes to hit Florida in 2004-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Caused record number of hurricanes in 2005-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Caused hurricanes Katrina and Rita to devastate Gulf Coast voting blocks that didn't support him-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Blocked aid to New Orleans after Katrina because he hates black people-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Rep Franks says the President effectively used Katrina to impose “Ethnic Cleansing” of black people from the region to shift the voting base from Democrat to Republican- we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Orchestrated cover up of bi-partisan investigations into negligence and deliberate blockage of aid to New Orleans after Katrina-we'll let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore

Well, apparently yes. That's exactly what the Democratic Party's leaders are saying now. So too are the left's more prominent fire stokers like Daily KOS

(Blogger and professional Bush-basher KOS admits he was wrong about impeachment and Pres Bush should be legally left off the hook for his crimes and sins)

The only thing worse than that is Gov Dean's election night admission that-even thought the DNC had campaigned for a year on the idea that they had a plan for Iraq called "A New Direction In Iraq"-Gov Dean admitted that there never was a plan, and that they'd start working on one as soon as they were elected (I guess somehow getting elected is a pre-requisite? See also electoral standing of ISG).
(DNC Chairman Dean admits there never was an actual plan for Iraq or even a committee to brainstorm ideas for the magic bullet plan)

Boy, no impeachment, no immediate withdrawal from Iraq, agreeing with Pres Bush that there is no other acceptable goal in Iraq except (gag) his goal...oh well, at least they'll finally implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission that the Pres Bush sinfully refused to do (probably to help his oil buddies somehow).
(Democrats cancel plans to implement 911 Commission suggestions)

What?

You mean Speaker Pelosi and other Dem leaders have already said they're not going to do that either?

Man, what exactly ARE the Democrats going to do?

Anything?

They were elected to do all those things, and they're not gonna even TRY to do any?

I wonder, if the Democrats campaigned, marketed, and sold the idea that all those campaign platforms were legitimate, and now they're saying they're not...then were they ever really legitimate?  If not legitimate to warrant impeachment, then did the Democratic Party leadership just pander, mislead, and manipulate Americans just to get the party back into power?   Deeds or words-where’s the reality of importance?

No, it couldn't be....except...none of those things are going to happen, and they didn't even wait to be sworn in to take them off the table. They didn't even TRY to fight for them. They readily, and without restriction or contest dropped their dogma as if...

...they were just campaign promises and not really what the party was interested in doing.

What’s far more important than impeachment for a legendary list of crimes against humanity and in particular the American people, what’s more important than fleeing Iraq are…um, raising the minimum wage (that was their top priority and the only thing the Democratic Party really planned on doing?)

Oh, Democrats were elected 3 months ago? Ok, well they'll fill in that blank agenda once sworn into office I'm sure. Right?

Perhaps the ones requiring oversight are the ones who lied and lied and lied their way into power, and now do nothing with it except raise the minimum wage and hold public bitch-sessions/hearings?

UPDATE

Well, it's been almost a year now....still no New Direction in Iraq plan for success in Iraq-only calls for retreat, defeat, cut, and run

What IS the Global War on Terror?  Some Democrats in Congress (and clearly their base of supporters) prefer to pretend that such a thing doesn’t exist.   The very nature of its name conjures up such impossible tasks as the “War on Poverty, the “War on Drugs,” the “War on (fill in the blank).”  Many argue that terror or terrorism is a tactic, and it’s impossible to fight and win against a tactic.  Of course, no one ever really wins a war.  They survive it.

The Global War on Terror is a world war.  It’s not World War III since some say that was the Cold War.  It’s not really World War IV as the original “Great War”/World War I, and World War II were really not the first and second global wars (the Napoleonic Wars, even the European Renaissance efforts at global imperialism or the Chinese, Mongol, and Roman efforts can claim that they were fought globally).  Thus, calling this latest global war a “World War” is incorrect at least, and misleading at worst.  Besides, it’s not a conventional war like the traditional World War I and II.  Yes, it’s true that: soldiers, ships, aircraft, tanks, submarines, spies, politics, economics, populations are all elements of this latest global war, but they’re used entirely differently.

The Global War on Terror is a war that is in every house, hut, cave, and building on planet Earth.  It is a struggle between a group of people who use terrorist tactics (among others) in an attempt to reject the inalienable rights of man as endowed by the creator to live, to live free, and to live in liberty (i.e.: under a government that derives its power from the people). 

On the other side of the war are two groups of people: those who submit, and those who do not.  The people who submit have their reasoning, but the people who do not simply believe that those inalienable rights are not free, and they choose to stand and fight for those rights for all rather than submit under a pile of reasoned excuses.  If the enemy want America out of Iraq, the Middle East, to abandon Israel, to drive hybrid cars, etc. that’s perfectly acceptable to many people.  Many might even say it’s fine to have purely Muslim public schools in the U.S. or even publicly funded anti-American madrassas.  Some will even bow to the will of others if it means American women should cover their heads.  Others simply will never ever allow someone to force their wife and little girl to wear a bhurka (let alone give up their own beer and bratwurst for fear of offending an Islamic Holy Warrior). 

"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."

-         Saddam Hussein 2/8/91

“Our missiles could not reach Washington.  If they could reach Washington, we would strike.”

-Saddam Hussein 9/3/98

No one on the planet is excluded from its effects-not the people of Sudan who are enduring genocide at the hands of Islamic Holy Warriors, not the people of New York City either.  It doesn’t matter where you live-in a high tower of steel and glass or in a cave in Waziristan…humanity is at war.

As was mentioned earlier, no one really ever wins a war.  People survive them.  Technically war is described as one nation imposing its political and/or economic will upon another nation through violent means.  In this case, we have a stateless, borderless nation of psychotic head-sawer-offers who are mentally deranged enough to believe that killing in the name of a religion of peace is somehow not the ultimate in hypocrisy.  On the other hand, we have nation-states ruled by governments that derive their authority from the consent of the people rather than forcing the people to submit by beating them if 55% of their population (women) dare to walk down the street without an escort or (Allah forbid) show their face in public without a bhurka. 

All wars are political struggles.  That’s why the military calls members of its armed forces, “warfighters” and not “warwinners.”  A military can only force conditions where politicians accept the other nation’s will, their terms, their conditions, their wishes, their desires.  Generals do not end wars, but they do make it possible for governments to sign peace treaties (see also the required senate ratification of all peace treaties).

It’s interesting to see how people describe the current war.  Many refer to World War II when they want to describe how to win a war, and others will point to Vietnam to describe why this war is already lost, and America should submit to the will of Islamic Holy Warriors.  But this war is not World War II, and it is not Vietnam. 

It’s been said that the American people lack national unity.  Among the reasons given for this is the lack of a national conscription, mandatory government service, or draft.  There’s no civilian rationing, or anything else that can lead to personal involvement for individuals in this nation.  Additionally, the nature of a faceless enemy using terrorist tactics and political correct rhetoric makes it hard to depersonalize, demean, develop and sustain disdain for the enemy.  Of course, some claim the national and international media (both of which are infinitely more powerful than in WWI & II or even Vietnam) are liberal, or anti-war, and while there’s some evidence to support a political bias, it cannot be debated that the modern media is avidly abhorrent to the idea of supporting war for fear of being labeled propaganda rather than the “news” that we have today.  All of these are huge hurdles to overcome in the struggle against Islamic Holy Warriors, but the solution is not a draft, or a propaganda campaign.

The solution, the key to overcoming the will of those who kill in the name of a religion of peace is in leadership.  Who can argue that there was a sense of unity in the United States after the 911 attacks?  Deep or shallow, real or fake, the fact is that we all wanted to be united that night and in the subsequent days.  President Bush’s approval ratings were at 90% and Congress’ were just a little lower.  Americans rallied.  They rallied to their leaders.

That’s not the case anymore.  Today, the President’s approval is hovering near his average in the mid 30’s, and Congress (which had spiked in approval after the Democratic Party took both Houses last fall) has been at 18% for months now-the lowest in recorded history.  What happened?!

The answer is simple.  The war was politicized.  Leaders took the war on terror, saw the political capital that was garnered in the wake of the attacks, and sought that power.  Some try to pretend that they were superhero leaders while the towers were burning (lest we forget where they were when the Islamic Holy Warriors were getting on the planes).  Others play on people’s fear that the enemy is as non-existent as their borders, and that the real threat to the American people is the opposite political party, American government. or some super-secret organization that planted thousands of charges in the World Trade Center without anyone noticing (and so forth). 

When Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle saw that the war on terror was going to have a new central front in Iraq, he saw the deliberate division, he spoke up, and he was right.

"We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about life and death,"

-Tom Daschle 9/25/02

FIVE years later, Senator H Clinton, seeking the Presidency for herself, tried to politicize the war on terror.

“If certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world and so I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well,” she said.

Even other political players seeking the Oval Office stopped and took notice.  It was a wake up call. 

 “I don’t agree that Republicans would have an advantage. I would never cede that,” said Senator Edwards (D) adding, “The focus should not be on politics or on votes. The focus is going to have to be on what will have to be done to unite America to make the American people safe.”

But Sen. Clinton’s closest competitor, Sen. Obama, seemed to have the greatest epiphany.   In no uncertain terms, he pointed out that the political parties have been using the war on terror as a wedge issue; an issue to stir the people and get them motivated to give time, money, and votes.

“It’s not right when the Republicans do it [use terror as a wedge issue], and by the way, it’s not right when Democrats do it. Now I’ve noticed we’ve got to be careful about that too,” he said. “No one in politics regardless of party should play politics with an issue that is as grave as our national security.”

Yet the politicization continues.  The deliberate dividing of the nation at a time of war continues.  Why?  Perhaps it’s easier to take support than it is to build it?  It must be easier to market peace-however impossible-than it is to market hardship and struggle-no matter how necessary and/or unavoidable.  Maybe 21^st Century American politicians see it as more lucrative to point fingers, levy accusations, to hold 600 hearings and investigations of our own government than it is to attack-even rhetorically-those who would kill us?  If the purpose of leadership is to guide, then we should all be asking if our political leaders are leading us toward the enemy to confront and overpower, to identify, find, fix, and destroy the enemy, or are they leading us away? 

This Global War on Terror will not be fought in a battle like Verdun, Stalingrad, Hue, or Khe Sahn.  It will be fought on our TV’s, in our PC’s, and it will be won when our own political will is stronger than the enemy’s; when we are lead to the belief that there is an enemy out there who is far more dangerous than “this administration,” or people with an R or D next to their title.  It will be won when people stand up and lead others into understanding and believing that the enemy deserves more attention than a lame duck President or a pollster.  When America gets leaders once again-leaders who unite rather than deliberately divide, then America will be as indestructible, unconquerable, and inalienable as the rights endowed by the creator to all men…rights that we will defend rather than excuse, submit, handover, give away, or cast aside in the futile hope that Islamic Holy Warriors can be appeased into a peaceful coexistence.

"It would be unworthy of a great Nation to exaggerate an isolated incident, or to become inflamed by some one act of violence. But it would be inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents in the face of evidence which makes it clear that the incident is not isolated, but is part of a general plan.  The important truth is that these acts of international lawlessness are a manifestation of a design which has been made clear to the American people for a long time.  It is time for all Americans, Americans of all the Americas to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Jihadi-dominated world.

Generation after generation, America has battled for the general policy of the freedom of the seas. And that policy is a very simple one -- but a basic, a fundamental one. It means that no Nation has the right to make the broad oceans of the world at great distances from the actual theater of land war unsafe for the commerce of others.

That has been our policy, proved time and time again, in all our history.

There has now come a time when you and I must see the cold, inexorable necessity of saying to these inhuman, unrestrained seekers of world conquest and permanent world domination by the sword: "You seek to throw our children and our children's children into your form of terrorism and slavery. You have now attacked our own safety. You shall go no further."

One peaceful Nation after another has met disaster because each refused to look the Jihadi danger squarely in the eye until it actually had them by the throat.

The United States will not make that fatal mistake.

Do not let us be Hairsplitters Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

This is the time for prevention of attack.

But let this warning be clear. From now on, if Iranian or Syrian support of insurgents in this war is conducted, the protection of which is necessary for American defense they do so at their own peril.

I have no illusions about the gravity of this step. I have not taken it hurriedly or lightly. It is the result of months and months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. In the protection your Nation and mine it cannot be avoided.

The American people have faced other grave crises in their history -- with American courage, and with American resolution. They will do no less today.

They know the actualities of the attacks upon us. They know the necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. They know that the times call for clear heads and fearless hearts.

And with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious of their duty, and conscious of the righteousness of what they do, they will -- with Divine help and guidance -- stand their ground against this latest assault upon their democracy, their sovereignty, and their freedom.

When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike,

You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him.

Those words all come from FDR's Sept 11, 1941 fireside chat speech (I had to replace NAZI with Jihadi and Italian and German with Syrian and Iranian).

Wouldn't you love to see Sen. Hillary Clinton, former President Carter, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Howard Dean, or Sen. Dick “Dirka Dirka Dirka” Durbin all rant about how militant and pre-emptive that rhetoric was only to have the following day's headline be,

"Press Secretary Tony Snow admits Bush plagiarized his speech from FDR"

Ah, historical irony.  I bathe in its soothing warmth and ironic effervescence.

In a few weeks, there will be almost 200,000 veteran, elite, American troops in Iraq-all trained in counter-insurgency operations.  They will be supported by almost 50,000 US Navy and Air Force personnel stationed in the Persian Gulf, and ready to bring 300-500 American combat aircraft into action at a moment’s notice.  In addition to this overwhelming combat power, the Iraqi Security Forces can field between 350-450,000 people ranging in capability from desert border patrol forces to extremely experienced and battle-proven counter-insurgency special forces.  Other Coalition forces in Iraq add to the 700,000 with yet tens of thousands more troops.

Facing this massive counter-insurgency force are an estimated 30-60,000 insurgents.  Besides being outnumbered 100:1 or 200:1, the insurgents are ill-equipped, ill-trained, their command and communication structure is intricate, but to describe it as fragmented and disconnected is a gross understatement.  They have no air support.  They have no naval support.  Their supplies are literally scrounged, dug up from small caches left as Saddam’s regime fled to Syria in 2003, and smuggled in from Iran and Syria.

The insurgency is compromised of 10-20 different groups who often fight each other more than they fight Iraqi, American, and Coalition forces.  Of the 10-20 different insurgent groups, there are four different support elements that are needed for the insurgency to survive:

1. Remnants of Saddam’s regime that fled to Syria in 2003
2. Al Queda
3. Iranian Pasadran, Revolutionary Guards, and proxy terrorist groups
4. Syrian Intelligence and their proxy terrorist groups

What military strategy can a force so outnumbered, outgunned, out-trained, and disorganized use to defeat the massive power of the combined and integrated Coalition, Iraqi, and American forces?

Do the insurgents plan to surround a force 200x their size, and then crush it?

Do the insurgents plan to cut off supplies and starve their enemy (us) into submission?

Do the insurgents plan to drive the US Marines into the sea?

Do the insurgents plan to kill off every single American, Iraqi, and Coalition soldier?

None of those plans are viable strategies for the insurgents.

They cannot win a military battle, they have not won a single military battle, and so we must ask, how do they plan to force American generals to give the order to leave Iraq?

Put simply, there is no military situation in which American and Coalition generals are not going to order a retreat unless they themselves are ordered by their superiors.  This is obvious to anyone and everyone including the insurgents, so clearly insurgent strategy is not aimed at a military victory, or at a military decision to leave.

If the presence of American and Coalition forces in Iraq is not decided in battle, and not decided by the battlefield commanders, but rather by their superiors, then what can the insurgents do to make the battlefield commanders’ superiors order a rout from Iraq?

The superiors (who decide the presence of anti-insurgency forces in Iraq) are civilian leaders.  They are politicians.  How does anyone get a politician to do something?

A politician can be bought, but the price they accept must be larger than the price in political capital that they spend, and so no political leader who has tied his horse to Iraq is going to be bought off by a price that a ragtag group of insurgents can afford.

A politician can be forced, but they can only be forced to take action if those who put the politician in power demand action to a degree where it is more costly in political capital to stay, than it is to order the retreat. 

It is not the troops who will runaway from Iraq.

It is not the generals who will order a retreat from Iraq.

It is not even the politicians who give orders to the generals who order the retreat from Iraq.

WE will order our own defeat in Iraq.

Americans can either support the war, or support/accept defeat.  Whichever we want more, is what we will demand, and our subordinate politicians will acquiesce to the will of the people.  They are always far too happy to accommodate their voters, supporters, and financial donors, and they will bend whichever way the wind is blowing; whichever way we demand.

If the American people realize that defeat in Iraq is far more dangerous and devastating than the status quo, then perhaps the American people will chose to support success in Iraq.  However, if the American people are convinced that defeat is acceptable and inconsequential, or that the consequences of defeat are less than the status quo, then the removal of forces will be demanded by the people, of the politicians who will order the generals to order the troops to runaway-err, I mean…”redeploy.”

So it is that the insurgents aim to shift the support of the American people from support for success and victory to accepting defeat.  They do this not by attacking Americans, but by providing political capital to politicians, pundits, policy makers, and policy shapers.  By making it so that those people have more to gain by an American defeat than they do by an American victory, the insurgents manage to impose their will and compel others to drive the American and Coalition forces from Iraq.  It is an inescapable truth that opposition to the war cannot be paired with support for victory; wanting America to win in Iraq. 

In the past, there was a third way, the desire for a different path toward success and victory in Iraq.  One could thus oppose the war on numerous levels, but instead of accepting defeat, those same opponents of the war could instead demand that the war be fought differently.  Lacking the promised “New Direction In Iraq” plan that the Democrats pandered for years, there is no longer a way to oppose the war and want America to win at the same time.  It’s either the Bush Plan, or the insurgent plan; either American victory, or demanding defeat per the insurgent’s only strategy. 

The only strategy they can maintain is to target America’s weakest link, our hope and kindness.  We hope for easier solutions, and we seek kindness over suicide killings.  Show us a path to that peace, and we prefer it to war.  The insurgents are doing just that.  They are constantly promoting the idea (through videos, fax, press release, internet chats, websites, even their own TV stations), that if Americans just sued for peace and accepted defeat…all will be well.   Some politicians, pundits, policy makers, and policy shapers promote the same idea-often for their own different reasons and/or excuses, but why they do it is irrelevant to the fact that they do it; they parrot the enemy’s objective instead of America’s.  

America MUST have a secure and stable Iraq before her forces can come home, or history demonstrates very clearly that chaos will ensue, we will be targeted for our national cowardice, and a third invasion will be necessary-and far more expensive in blood and treasure.

Insurgents MUST convince the American people to demand that American forces retreat from Iraq, and any effort to promote that idea over the needs and objective of the United States is in its effect support of the terrorists’ cause, objective, strategy, and implementation of that strategy.

This is the insurgent strategy that defeated the British Empire twice in Afghanistan.  It is the insurgent strategy that drove the civilized world from Lebanon in the 1980’s.  It is the insurgent strategy that defeated the Soviet Superpower in Afghanistan.  It is the insurgent strategy that the North Vietnamese used to end the American presence in Vietnam.  It is the insurgent strategy in Iraq.  It’s why terrorist propaganda videos and other PR efforts constantly speak to the American people, and not to the morale and resolve of the American forces.

American soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines do not lack resolve-certainly not when they outnumber the enemy 200:1 and have massive military advantages in every possible manner.

Politicians resolve changes with each poll of the American people.

It is the American people who lack resolve-who are deciding whether or not to succeed in Iraq or accept defeat.  

In a few weeks, there will be almost 200,000 veteran, elite, American troops in Iraq-all trained in counter-insurgency operations.  They will be supported by almost 50,000 US Navy and Air Force personnel stationed in the Persian Gulf, and ready to bring 300-500 American combat aircraft into action at a moment’s notice.  In addition to this overwhelming combat power, the Iraqi Security Forces can field between 350-450,000 people ranging in capability from desert border patrol forces to extremely experienced and battle-proven counter-insurgency special forces.  Other Coalition forces in Iraq add to the 700,000 with yet tens of thousands more troops.

Facing this massive counter-insurgency force are an estimated 30-60,000 insurgents.  Besides being outnumbered 100:1 or 200:1, the insurgents are ill-equipped, ill-trained, their command and communication structure is intricate, but to describe it as fragmented and disconnected is a gross understatement.  They have no air support.  They have no naval support.  Their supplies are literally scrounged, dug up from small caches left as Saddam’s regime fled to Syria in 2003, and smuggled in from Iran and Syria.

The insurgency is compromised of 10-20 different groups who often fight each other more than they fight Iraqi, American, and Coalition forces.  Of the 10-20 different insurgent groups, there are four different support elements that are needed for the insurgency to survive:

1. Remnants of Saddam’s regime that fled to Syria in 2003
2. Al Queda
3. Iranian Pasadran, Revolutionary Guards, and proxy terrorist groups
4. Syrian Intelligence and their proxy terrorist groups

What military strategy can a force so outnumbered, outgunned, out-trained, and disorganized use to defeat the massive power of the combined and integrated Coalition, Iraqi, and American forces?

Do the insurgents plan to surround a force 200x their size, and then crush it?

Do the insurgents plan to cut off supplies and starve their enemy (us) into submission?

Do the insurgents plan to drive the US Marines into the sea?

Do the insurgents plan to kill off every single American, Iraqi, and Coalition soldier?

None of those plans are viable strategies for the insurgents.

They cannot win a military battle, they have not won a single military battle, and so we must ask, how do they plan to force American generals to give the order to leave Iraq?

Put simply, there is no military situation in which American and Coalition generals are not going to order a retreat unless they themselves are ordered by their superiors.  This is obvious to anyone and everyone including the insurgents, so clearly insurgent strategy is not aimed at a military victory, or at a military decision to leave.

If the presence of American and Coalition forces in Iraq is not decided in battle, and not decided by the battlefield commanders, but rather by their superiors, then what can the insurgents do to make the battlefield commanders’ superiors order a rout from Iraq?

The superiors (who decide the presence of anti-insurgency forces in Iraq) are civilian leaders.  They are politicians.  How does anyone get a politician to do something?

A politician can be bought, but the price they accept must be larger than the price in political capital that they spend, and so no political leader who has tied his horse to Iraq is going to be bought off by a price that a ragtag group of insurgents can afford.

A politician can be forced, but they can only be forced to take action if those who put the politician in power demand action to a degree where it is more costly in political capital to stay, than it is to order the retreat. 

It is not the troops who will runaway from Iraq.

It is not the generals who will order a retreat from Iraq.

It is not even the politicians who give orders to the generals who order the retreat from Iraq.

WE will order our own defeat in Iraq.

Americans can either support the war, or support/accept defeat.  Whichever we want more, is what we will demand, and our subordinate politicians will acquiesce to the will of the people.  They are always far too happy to accommodate their voters, supporters, and financial donors, and they will bend whichever way the wind is blowing; whichever way we demand.

If the American people realize that defeat in Iraq is far more dangerous and devastating than the status quo, then perhaps the American people will chose to support success in Iraq.  However, if the American people are convinced that defeat is acceptable and inconsequential, or that the consequences of defeat are less than the status quo, then the removal of forces will be demanded by the people, of the politicians who will order the generals to order the troops to runaway-err, I mean…”redeploy.”

So it is that the insurgents aim to shift the support of the American people from support for success and victory to accepting defeat.  They do this not by attacking Americans, but by providing political capital to politicians, pundits, policy makers, and policy shapers.  By making it so that those people have more to gain by an American defeat than they do by an American victory, the insurgents manage to impose their will and compel others to drive the American and Coalition forces from Iraq.  It is an inescapable truth that opposition to the war cannot be paired with support for victory; wanting America to win in Iraq. 

In the past, there was a third way, the desire for a different path toward success and victory in Iraq.  One could thus oppose the war on numerous levels, but instead of accepting defeat, those same opponents of the war could instead demand that the war be fought differently.  Lacking the promised “New Direction In Iraq” plan that the Democrats pandered for years, there is no longer a way to oppose the war and want America to win at the same time.  It’s either the Bush Plan, or the insurgent plan; either American victory, or demanding defeat per the insurgent’s only strategy. 

The only strategy they can maintain is to target America’s weakest link, our hope and kindness.  We hope for easier solutions, and we seek kindness over suicide killings.  Show us a path to that peace, and we prefer it to war.  The insurgents are doing just that.  They are constantly promoting the idea (through videos, fax, press release, internet chats, websites, even their own TV stations), that if Americans just sued for peace and accepted defeat…all will be well.   Some politicians, pundits, policy makers, and policy shapers promote the same idea-often for their own different reasons and/or excuses, but why they do it is irrelevant to the fact that they do it; they parrot the enemy’s objective instead of America’s.  

America MUST have a secure and stable Iraq before her forces can come home, or history demonstrates very clearly that chaos will ensue, we will be targeted for our national cowardice, and a third invasion will be necessary-and far more expensive in blood and treasure.

Insurgents MUST convince the American people to demand that American forces retreat from Iraq, and any effort to promote that idea over the needs and objective of the United States is in its effect support of the terrorists’ cause, objective, strategy, and implementation of that strategy.

This is the insurgent strategy that defeated the British Empire twice in Afghanistan.  It is the insurgent strategy that drove the civilized world from Lebanon in the 1980’s.  It is the insurgent strategy that defeated the Soviet Superpower in Afghanistan.  It is the insurgent strategy that the North Vietnamese used to end the American presence in Vietnam.  It is the insurgent strategy in Iraq.  It’s why terrorist propaganda videos and other PR efforts constantly speak to the American people, and not to the morale and resolve of the American forces.

American soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines do not lack resolve-certainly not when they outnumber the enemy 200:1 and have massive military advantages in every possible manner.

Politicians resolve changes with each poll of the American people.

It is the American people who lack resolve-who are deciding whether or not to succeed in Iraq or accept defeat.  

This time last year, the American people were telling politicians in Washington that they were not satisfied with the handling of the war in Iraq.  Democrats promised that if they were elected, they’d provide a “New Direction in Iraq.”  Today, most Americans can clearly see that the New Direction in Iraq is withdrawal from Iraq, as fast as possible.  Consequences of that withdrawal are nearly irrelevant (save, political consequences to the Democratic Party’s agenda), and only the details of the retreat remain in debate within the party. 

Well, before the elections last fall Americans didn’t approve of the way the President was handling the war in Iraq.  Only 35% supported his efforts at handling the war.  Many claim that the change of power in Washington from the Republicans to the Democrats from the American people’s demand for the vaunted New Direction in Iraq.  Democratic party leaders and want-to-be-leaders all declared a mandate from the American people to “change direction” in Iraq.

When Democrats were sworn into power in January, the approval rating for Congress was among the highest in American history-well over 55%.  Today, the Democrats’ Congress has fallen down to about 20% (some approval ratings put it as low as 14%!).  Having been elected on the promise of handling the Iraq War better than the President, a new poll came out this recently that is absolutely stunning. 

Only 3% of the American people approve of the way the Democrats’ Congress has handled the Iraq War.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

Conversely, 97% of Americans don’t approve of the way the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq.  The American people have spoken, and they've told Congress that they want a new direction in the way they're handling the Iraq War.

How are Democrats handling the war?  The simple answer is that they’re not doing anything beyond declaring it lost and rhetorically opposing it.  Meanwhile they, in effect, are continuing to support it.  The most the Democrats’ Congress has done is offer non-binding resolutions against operations that they’d previously demanded (recall that prior to the 12/06 and 1/07 meetings between Democratic Party leaders and Syrian dictator Assad, most Democrats described their pre-midterm election, New Direction in Iraq as sending more troops to Iraq; a surge in forces).   On several occasions, the Democrats’ Congress has pretended to try and use the power of the purse strings to cut funding for the war, but on each occasion it was known before the first phone call was made that any such effort would be vetoed.  Rather than barter, trade, and sell pork barrel projects and other earmarks to bribe/buy/cajole enough votes to over ride a veto, the Democrats chose to “make a statement” with their fake efforts to cut the funding for the war (and it’s a good thing since almost 85% of Americans polled do not want Congress to cut the funding for body armor, food, ammunition, and other supplies to forces in the field).

So what is the Congress expected to do?   Americans don’t want them to cut the funding for the war, and they’re not willing to do it anyway.  Americans were told there’d be a new direction in Iraq, and they clearly wanted that, but what new direction can the Democrats’ Congress provide?  They can’t dictate strategy as they are not the Commanders-in-chief.  They can pretend to provide “oversight,” with hundreds of hearings, but that’s proven completely ineffectual, and Americans know a witch hunt when they see one (see also Congressional approval rating and approval of how the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq).

Congressional Democrats seriously need to recognize a few things:

1)       Americans did want a new direction in 11/06, but they expected a new direction towards success.  Until DNC Chairman Howard Dean said that the New Direction in Iraq didn’t mean immediate withdrawal, Republicans and Democrats were in a dead heat for control of Congress, but when it was claimed that the New Direction wasn’t a retreat/defeat, Democrats surged ahead in polls and took both houses of Congress.  They were not given a mandate for “redeployment”, but rather a mandate to provide a new strategy for success in Iraq (one that remains to be shown or even described by the Democratic Party).

2)       If Congressional Democrats lack the political courage to trade other elements of their political agenda in exchange for enough votes to override a Presidential veto, then they are effectively powerless for that’s the only power they have to change the war’s direction.

3)       It’s time to consider that perhaps the New Direction in Iraq that the American people desired was only partially an electoral statement about President Bush’s handling of the war, and was in fact partially a statement about how the American people are tired of the incessant rhetorical opposition to success in Iraq.  Americans not only expect a New Direction towards success, but we expect our leaders to lead us to that success, and a nation that’s led the world to victory in two worldwide wars as well as put men on the moon, expects that our leaders find a way to defeat 10-30,000 insurgents in Iraq.

The American people are a hopeful, positive, and helping people.  The American government has historically reflected that population which the elected leaders represent.  Today, however, the government is not at all as hopeful, as positive, and as helping as the people.  Why do 97% of the American people disapprove of the way the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq?  It’s because Americans are a hopeful people who still believe that this nation can do great things; can do anything. 

The Democrats’ Congress does not believe the nation can do anything, and they surely do not advocate even trying.  Instead, they oppose great efforts before they begin, dismiss the words of decorated, honorable military leaders when they report politically unsavory results (why are signs of success in Iraq politically unsavory for Democrats?), and they advocate retreat rather than supporting a fight against terrorists wherever they are found. 

Make no mistake about it, retreat is defeat, and advocating retreat is advocating defeat.  No matter how stupid a person is, every American knows that “redeploy” is a Monty Python sort of description for retreat, and Democrats who advocate “redeployment” might as well be advocating a policy of “runaway!!”

Why then do Congressional Democrats continue to dance and parse with their complaints about the war in Iraq?  The answer is simple:  President Bush is not going to withdraw forces.  The war will continue.  That’s why the leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates have all come out and said that if they are elected, and then they’ll keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.  Whether it’s President H Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards, they’ve all said they will keep the war going. 

They’ve already made that concession because they know that it’s not surges in military force levels that have failed.  It’s the premature evacuation of forces that continues to fail. 

When force levels were dropped after the fall of Saddam’s regime, violence increased.

When force levels were dropped after the first round of elections, violence increased.

When force levels were dropped after national elections in 12/05 (per Sen. Kerry’s “demand”) violence increased.

When British force levels dropped in Basra this year, violence increased.

It’s not the presence of forces that causes violence, it’s the lack of forces that causes it, and a complete lack of forces (a full withdrawal or “redeployment”) will lead to complete violence.  It’s the one thing that 16 different intelligence organizations agreed upon in the last National Intelligence Estimate, and it’s the one thing that even left and right leaning armchair generals agree upon.

If the US leaves Iraq:

·   The government there will collapse,

·   There will be a massive increase in violence-possibly anarchy akin to Beirut in the 80’s, Sarajevo, Grozny, Kabul, and Mogadishu in the 90’s,

·   There is a strong possibility of genocide with hundreds of thousands or even millions killed,

·   The sectarian violence and covert foreign support for factions inside Iraq from its neighbors could very well lead to a regional war.

Only people in complete denial believe that if the US leaves, Iraq will be a better place (appease the terrorists demands, and all will be better).

Since the Democrats’ Congress is unwilling to cut the funding and end the war at the expense of other political agenda items, and since the Democrats’ Congress is unwilling to support the very actions they demanded before the election (sending more troops to Iraq), the very first result is that the segment of the American people who are already defeated (ready to capitulate Iraq and surrender it to increased violence, genocide, possibly regional war) are dissatisfied with the Democrats’ Congress. 

On the other side of the coin is that segment of the American people who were misled in 2006 and believed that the Democrats’ New Direction In Iraq meant a new strategy for success (including the October 2006 call from Democratic Party leaders to send more troops to bring about success in Iraq).  They too are dissatisfied with Congress’ handling of the Iraq War.

Put simply, the Democrats’ Congress cannot have it both ways and still expect that more than 3% of the American people will approve of their handling of the Iraq War.  Since no substantive action has been taken to cut the funding and accept defeat, and since Democrats in Congress can’t even imagine let alone advocate success in Iraq, no demographic has been satisfied. 

It’s been said that the first rule of politics is that in every situation one can either:

Do something

Or

Do nothing

The decision to do either is still a decision, and every decision has results, consequences, and those who made the decision bear the responsibility of its results.  A person can either pay a bill or not pay it but that is a decision, and there are consequences for deciding either way.  People are always accountable for what they have chosen to do, and for what they have chosen not to do.  Sure, a career politician/professional lawyer can try to spin, distort, blame others, or come up with excuses, but 97% of the American people know when they’re not getting results. 

97% of the American people are not happy with the way the Congress is handling the Iraq war because the Democrats’ Congress is not handling the Iraq War-at all.  They’re not doing anything about it.  The war continues, and no amount of finger-pointing, excuse-making or spinning is going to change the facts that: as long as appeasement, retreat/defeat, or opposition to success is advocated, there can be no success.  One cannot support/advocate/wish for success and oppose the pursuit of it at the same time.

Last fall, Democrats were given control of both houses of Congress, and President Bush was made a lame duck.  Democrats were given the chance to either put up (take action and end the war even if it means trading other political agendas) or shut up.  With only 3% approving of their handling (or lack thereof) of the Iraq War, they don’t even need to shut up now.  No one’s listening. 

Instead, the American people (who expected deeds not words) hear only rhetoric instead of seeing action; people see only words, and no deeds.  Americans see Congress‘ non-binding opposition to the war, and as such, their support for the Democrats’ Congress has become equally non-binding.  How else can one explain that President Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress, or that more Americans approve of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than they do of the Democrats’ Congress handling of the war?

We look at This Administration’s handling of the looting and chaos that followed the fall of Baghdad in 2003, and we wondered how no one could have planned for that?  We wondered how no one could find vaunted stockpiles of WMD.  We wondered how no one could have prepared for an insurgency while at the same time they had planned an invasion that focused not on destroying the enemy, but on fracturing them, hitting them with a million rounds of birdshot so that their command and control would die in shock & awe leaving uncontrolled units to be bypassed, and then never addressed.

We look at This Administration’s handling of Katrina, and are dumbfounded at how no one in the entire Cabinet could somehow manage to turn on a TV for the week before the hurricane hit, or the week after it hit.  No one could see it coming?  No one knew there was chaos and Biblical disaster?  Who was in charge?

We look at This Administration’s handling of Supreme Court justice nominees, or This Administration’s ability to ramrod Social Security reform, tax reform, and campaign reform through a friendly Congress, and we wonder how a single party can control every branch of the Federal Government and not make these things happen.

But contrary to the political rhetoric and the apparent obviousness of these examples of failure, not everything in the world is the fault of This Administration.  No.  This Administration's greatest failure-the core of every failure listed above and a litany of others-is a failure of leadership.

People need to remember-particularly those on the right, that President Bush did not win the 2000 election by a majority of Americans; i.e. the majority of Americans did not want him to be President in 2000, and in 2004, the only reason that he beat out Sen. Kerry was because Sen. Kerry was made to be LESS appealing to 3% of the population than President Bush was (who had approval's barely scratching 50% at the time. President Bush has not been a popular President. There've been spikes of popularity, but after 6yrs and 8yrs of Americans knowing him, his popularity has averaged fewer than 40%. The man does not-err, sorry, This Administration did not come to power and does not maintain power by popularity. He is not a popular guy, and that is a gross failure of President Bush-err, sorry, This Administration has failed to make President Bush more popular and popularity in the post-Carter history of the Executive Branch is directly correlated to the level of leadership that a President can influence. Put simply for people who only see things as simple, This Administration has never been consistently popular and has thus never consistently provided leadership beyond that provided by rank itself.

Were there better leadership, the American people would have been united in facing down Saddam, but instead the lack of popularity correlated to a lack of popular leadership which enabled the anti-war movement which had been almost non-existent in early 2002, to become a driving force and a dividing force in this nation by the time the President began his diplomatic and military run-up to the war on 9/12/02.  Leadership means leading not just Republicans, conservatives, and RINOs, but it also means leading Americans who do not care or do not have the time to study and research political issues.  It also means leading Americans who are of different or even opposite political persuasions.  National leaders cannot lead the nation and only appeal to a partisan portion of it.  National leaders must lead the nation, and this is President Bush’s-err, This Administration’s greatest failure.

In contrast, President Kennedy-almost half a century ago-provided real leadership. Similarly, President Reagan and President Clinton did as well. That doesn't mean the leadership any of those men provided was the right leadership, but they did provide it.  This is why many like Sen. Edwards, why people like Mayor Rudy, and why Sen. Obama gives people goosebumps when he speaks. Right or not, they are outstanding and charismatic leaders who subsequently can lead by more than rank.  Conservatives would do well to recognize the importance of popularity and how it correlates to the ability to lead, and liberals would do equally well to recognize that they’ve had it easy for four years.

Four years ago, Republicans took over the Senate fro