Typically, Presidents in their last 2 years focus on issues that are generally popular and ones they feel they can get past a hostile Congress. President Clinton focused on seat belt laws and the Head Start program. Reagan focused on preserving his early accomplishments and solidifying his foreign policy goals (most of the goals had been achieved). Nevertheless, in the face of losing congress last year, George Bush has not veered from the most important objective of his presidency.

Months later the Iraq Study Group led by Saudiphile and antisemite James Baker stated:

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. ... A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian disaster. ... The situation in Baghdad and several provinces is dire. ... Pessimism is pervasive. ... Violence is increasing in scope, complexity and lethality."


Bush treated the Iraq Study Group's findings as they should have been - worthless. All the while facing a Democrat majority in Congress, emboldened by their sweep in the midterms. This was a Democrat majority whose kook fringe base was demanding American Withdrawal and came to power believing that (or at least they told us) was their mandate.

I'd like to avoid the cliche but when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the President went on the offensive. Did he call for troop withdrawals as Democrats said "the people" wanted? No, he instilled a General who wanted more. While Harry Reid called the surge a failure before it started, Bush pressed on.

When Democrats, led by Reid and Pelosi, passed a bill imposing time lines on the war, lame duck Bush vetoed it and sustained the veto. To boot, he outmaneuvered Democrats into authorizing another 100 Billion to finance the surge and the war. Bush is so clearly a lame duck that he has enabled a troop buildup since the supposed antiwar democrats took over. In his lame years he has advanced the most important aspect of his presidency and moved it toward success.

As General Petraeus testified, the antiwar movement seems battered. Harry Reid has said Democrats will not try to de-fund the war or impose new deadlines. Democrats cannot afford a showdown with Bush. He simply has more will than they do. He actually believes what he is doing, he believes in America. Democrats believe in hating Bush and hating America.

For you libs reading this, "What happened to the Party of Pelosi and Reid; the Party that was going to end U.S. involvement in the war and not permit Bush to pursue victory?"

Democrats do not have the will that the President has to impose their polices. Either because they don't actually believe them or because they fear the repercussions. Either way they have demonstrated they have no backbone. The contrast between them and the President could not be starker.

When it comes to issues of war, Democrats always seem to be intimated and bullied. Clinton inc, Edwards, Biden, et. al. all voted Bush a blank check for war in 2002. They had the same fear then as they do now that Bush would declare them weak.

They may regret that they authorized the war, but in a showdown with Bush they will lose again: George Bush doesn't blink and they do.

The Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy has lost its will to fight a lame duck president over a policy it despises. How can they be trusted to fight our real enemies? Then again, they think Bush is their enemy. It seems clear they are impotent against all enemies.


Related Posts:
Tony Blair Tells It Like It Is
MSNBC, NBC Disgrace The Military
George Bush Appropriately Commutes Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Sentence
Democrat Party: A Bunch of Trust Fund Babies
Dennis Miller - Prophet
Dems Try To End Bush Boom