If only Democrats still had the John Kennedy-Joe Lieberman mentality on world affairs, they would probably still be in the majority. Joe Lieberman is a breath of fresh air from the heated, emotional, vitriolic statements that come out of the current Democrat leaders. His logic and observations are inexcapable to those still with their heads about them. And his points about Iraq, and our need to succeed there, are right on target:

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis — particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

…

Indeed, to the extent that last week’s bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

…

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq’s “civil war” is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda’s strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

Lieberman is much more forgiving of his Democrat allies than they deserve. At every turn their actions have been to force an al Qaeda win in Iraq. We now know Bin Laden himself is orchestrating the battle for Baghdad against us. And, as Senator Lieberman notes, his strategy is to kill so many innocent people the wobbly types like Reid runaway. Reid and Pelosi and Mad Murtha know Bin Laden’s intentions. That is why they craft legislation that does all it can to give Bin Laden his win. That is why their legislation says we cannot do anything to stop the civil war, we can only go after al Qaeda. The civil war is al Qaeda’s only hope now, so by making that off limits he wins.

Never in the history of this country have people worked so hard from within this country to lose a war. Vietnam was their first success in losing, that is why the Dems are using all the same tactics now. They have the media puppets screaming “losers!”. They are pulling up emotional and disgruntled soldiers to do show trials on the Hill to make it look like the military is out of control and evil (reminiscent of Ghengis Khan). They do not bring up those with positive positions and heroic stories. And the Dems are trying to lose all momentum possible through strategic us of the legislature. I say they are trying harder because this time around this is not the same as Vietnam.

This time we have a volunteer military which is getting plenty of recruits and getting the job done. This time we are not experiencing the bloodbath and the tens of thousands of bodybags because we are too strong for this enemy. This enemy can only kill innocent, unarmed people. This time there is no “North Vietnam” – the country is under one democratically elected government – which Reid’s preferred winners in this conflict are trying to topple. There is no super power backing up the insurgents. And this war was not the result of containment policies but the result of an attack on our homeland – only the second in over 100 years.

This is not Vietnam and those Vietnam veterans like Hagel and others on the left are not going to lose this one as they did Vietnam. Sometimes I think those far left vets are upset that their war is the only war in the last 100 years this country lost. Most Vietnam Vets know they won that war militarily but let the politicians, the media and the liars like Kerry steal success from them. They still fight back from the idea Vietnam was a defeat. For them it probably wasn’t. It was purely a political disaster from start to finish. It is only those vets who cherish the defeat of Vietnam who want to see Nam as a military defeat.

In this war the armed forces are fighting back against the media blitz aimed at them. And they are having much more success because the old media lost its monopoly to the internet and the modern pamphleteers. In this war President Bush simply has more backbone than Nixon had and he knows, unlike Vietnam, a loss in Iraq would provide this country 50 years of conflict with Islamo Fascism. This war is being won, slowly. Every objective has been met – at some point. The problem is progress is just not fast enough for some. That is not a reason to quit and give up. Impatience can be deadly. And impatience is NO damn excuse to give the murderer of all those people on 9-11 a win.

How can anyone concede Iraq to the man who caused so many desparate and innocent people to jump to their deaths from 100 stories that fateful day? How can Reid and Pelosi stand in front of cameras and say “we need to let Bin Laden win, we were not strong enough”. After what that man did in this country, the lives he took, the glee he exhibited in snuffing out so many beautiful lives – some only babies – how can they stand up there and say Iraq is not going fast enough for us? And you know what their real intent is?

They don’t want to have to run elections in 2008 with Iraq as the top issue. That’s right folks, they want Iraq off the table before they have to deal with it. Hillary made the claim herself, in her usual awkward way. They want this war over so they don’t have to face the voters. They would give Iraq to Bin Laden simply to avoid having to deal with it in elections. Why do you think they want this wrapped up before next summer? That is the peak of the 2008 Presidential elections.

Lieberman is right, to retreat would be to lose massively. It would give Bin Laden EXACTLY what he wanted and predicted. It would make the brutish terrorist huddled in a cave a historic figure for all time. It would rally the Arab and Muslim street to global Jihad. Is this all worth being impatient? Is this all worth making the next election easier for the Democrats? Are we so far gone that we cannot stand up for democracy and ourselves and follow through on our promises after 9-11 to never forget and never allow it to happen again?

The Democrats are now the party who want to give Osama Bin Laden the biggest success he could ever hope for. They are the party who caved in the face of terrorism when there was no reason to – except expediency. They are the party who will not take the steps to protect us from an ascending terrorist threat, because they are the ones enabling the ascendency. Their stances on losing and staying out of the civil war (Bin Laden’s only hope) are the only things that could keep Bin Laden relevant. They are doing all they can to help him out now. This cannot continue.

Senator Leiberman – I implore you to send a signal to the Democrats and to this country. If you believe this is the battle of the ages and sacrifices are needed then it is time for you to be the historic figure instead of Bin Laden. It is time you caucused with the Republicans. The Reps lost the Senate on 2001 because of differences on tax cuts. The Dems are about to thrust us all into decades of hell. It is time Senator. It is time.

Addendum: If you have doubts, please listent to David Broder on this matter as well:

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

I am not worried about the Democrats and what they deserve, this country must have “more “at this critical time in humanity’s history. And you sir, can fix this. In fact, you are the only person in the country who can fix this.

Addendum: For you folks over at DU who cannot grasp the definition of the word “majority” I must remind you that (a) democrats and reps and independents (like me) each make up a third of the population, (b) occassionally a governing coalition will be created by the Indies supporting the Reps or Dems – this does not make Dems a majority, and (c) Lieberman is not a Dem and therefore the Dems do NOT have a majority of the Senate. So, if you want to pretend you folks have a ‘majority’ go right ahead. Those of us who have passed 7th grade math will just have to disagree.

Addendum: Liberals – note the reference to John Kennedy. And then recall that during his day democrats were truly a majority in every sense of the word. But let me note that your lack of attention to the important issue of Iraq is dead-on with my point about being dangerously oblivious. So while you think you are demonstrating sophistication, you are proving your attention deficit issues related to those fanatical terrorists out to kill us all. Thanks for playing, but I suggest you focus less on the minutiae and more on the national security – but then that would be asking you folks to be more like Kennedy!

Addendum: Carpetbagge – so because you are limited in your exposure and use of the word ‘majority’- as opposed to those of us with science related degrees and the broader meaning of the term outside those politically obsessed – I am the one with limited grasp of things? OK – well that sure is an interesting bit of pretzel logic! Sure you want to keep playing this game? Reality is a big wonderous thing – you may want to come out and visit it occassionally!