DISILLUSIONMENT LEADING TO US TROOP SUICIDES

If the current news pans out--all the evidence isn't in yet--President Bush will likely be exhonerated for sidestepping corrupt UN officials and doing what he (and virtually every member of Congress) thought best at the time. There are growing rumors, not of U.S. origin, that high level UN officials took substantial kickbacks from Saddam Hussein in return for looking the other way while oil proceeds were illegally diverted.



So we are in Iraq. The 'anybody but Bush' crowd would now have us cut and run. After all that has been our pattern in recent history: if it is costly or scary or difficult, we just pick up our toys and go home. Nothing would please the al-Qaida more and the more they believe they can make that happen, the more they will ratchet up their terrorist activities.

I honestly believe if the American resolve was at the level it was immediately following 9/11, most of the terrorists would have already given up and would have crawled back into their holes. Fortunately the majority still do support the cause and the President.

What I hear first hand from troops returning from Iraq is that our military supports the cause and the President too.

Yup, Timber nailed it. Consistency is the rule of the day here. If you don't like the message, don't bother to rebut it with a reasoned argument but take at least a backhanded swipe at or make fun of the messenger. It is so predictable it is positively comforting.

"I may not agree with the argument being espoused by Titus, however, your slightly off topic post was far from a "reasoned argument." It was a series of half-assed predictions and innacuracies built on the backbone of one monolithic generalization about liberal thought. The fact that it was almost certainly written with a straight face only compounds that, and sprinkles it with unintentional humor. Bravo."

Ironlion writes:

Quote:

"I may not agree with the argument being espoused by Titus, however, your slightly off topic post was far from a "reasoned argument." It was a series of half-assed predictions and innacuracies built on the backbone of one monolithic generalization about liberal thought. The fact that it was almost certainly written with a straight face only compounds that, and sprinkles it with unintentional humor. Bravo."

But of course referring to my post as 'slightly off topc' and a 'series of half-assed predictions and inaccuracies built on the backbone of one monolithic generalization about liberal thought' is a balanced, reasoned rebuttal. You see, speaking as an old debate coach, if the only rebuttal or counter point is "that's ridiculous" without explaining how it is so, the one with nothing but insults to offer loses.