TERRORIST VICTORY LAPS JUSTIFIED?
The . . . whatever it is in Iraq . . . is no longer a war, it’s a “problem,” House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi says. Abandonment enthusiast John Murtha, in the running for majority leader, is less ambiguous about it. George Bush “is not going to go on with this war in Iraq.” Murtha wants a Vietnam in Iraq. Chaos and mass murder in Iraq. A victory for terrorism in Iraq. An end of America’s relevance in the world, compliments of Iraq.
So much for the party of FDR, Truman and JFK. This is the party of Jimmy Carter.
Bush, meanwhile, is moving toward appeasement. With the cautious choice of Robert Gates for the Pentagon, Bush wants to work with the Democrats for success in Iraq. He’s waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which has signaled it wants talks with Iraq’s terrorist-backing neighbors in Iran and Syria.
What does this mean?
In India they not only need to beef up airport security but also the security of Sonia Gandhi's grandchildren as well as the security of the families of other leaders!
The good news - Bush talks the bi-partisanship talk but, as of now, refuses to accept the Baker line and kow tow to Syria and Iran. Let's hope he sticks to his guns. History will belong to him.
comments powered by Disqus
- A military cemetery whose African American history is hidden in plain sight in Philadelphia
- Texas Senate increases education board's textbook veto power
- The Secret Transcripts of the Six-Day War
- Buried at an Asylum, the ‘Unspoken, Untold History’ of the South
- New Orleans removes monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee
- Mark Moyar explains why he came to believe the Vietnam War was winnable
- How should Texas high schoolers learn history?
- What's the 'greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history’?
- H.R. McMaster criticized – and not for his defense of Trump
- Yale’s David Blight is asked if New Orleans rewrite its Civil War legacy