What the Heck was I Thinking!?

The New York Times thinks the Democrats are doing the right thing - working to defeat the Republicans and George Bush.

I thought the enemy were the Taliban and al Qaeda. I guess it depends on where you stand.

The editors used an interesting red-herring argument in the editorial:

Democrats Find Their Voice - New York Times

Senate Democrats quickly brought the House plan to the floor. But, ever the spoilers, Republicans blocked it, as they have other attempts to rein in Mr. Bushs war-without-end in Iraq.

I guess the only good war for the Times and the Democrats is one that is quick, no matter whether it brings victory or defeat.

I don’t think they understand the point of a war - to defeat the enemy. Most Americans would like to see a victory, not an escape. Most Democrat leaders appear more interested in seeing how fast they can run away from a fight than on seeing it through to the end.

Democrats Find Their Voice - New York Times

While reading this post from Tigerhawk, a thought struck me. Are Harry Reid and his fellow defeatists in Congress trying to make sure that a political improvement in Iraq cannot be nurtured?

The pieces of a puzzling situation:

First,

TigerHawk

First, political reconciliation cannot happen without a competent Iraqi army and police and the military support of the Sunni tribes.

Then from Reid,

“The president and his enablers in Congress are so afraid of being held accountable for this disastrous war policy that they’d rather leave our men and women in uniform empty-handed than work to change course in Iraq,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said after the bill fell in the procedural vote.

It appears that the Democrats are attempting to do the same thing in this war as they did in the Viet Nam war - withdraw funds that would support our allies. This would leave our allies to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and the militias.

TigerHawk

Ne-Neocon posts about the motives of Congressional Democrats in downplaying the success of the campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For them, its’ not just about the ideology of “America - bad, rest of world -good.”

It’s personal:

But I forgot another important reason. Perhaps, for some, it’s even the most important one: Bush-hatred, and the related desire to thwart him.

Marko at the munchkin wrangler posts on the positive impact of guns on society. I like the logic shown in the paragraph excerpted below. What I don’t understand is why the AARP is anti-gun - other than to say that they are liberal without thought or consideration.

Why the gun is civilization.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. (emphasis added)

(h/t The Instapundit)

the munchkin wrangler.: why the gun is civilization.