The Party of Surrender

Reaction to Howard Dean's determination to lose in Iraq, was immediate this time. He's old enough to remember 1972. I mean they lost all states but Massachusetts to Richard Nixon, who was never very likeable, by picking the one candidate that could make him look like the cool kid on the block, George McGovern.

In his interview on WOAI radio, Dean says "We need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, but in a friendly neighboring country to fight Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion." How many of our troops do you think would endorse that plan? What 'friendly neighboring country' does he have in mind, and what makes him think the terrorists wouldn't follow our forces there? Iraq's borders are quite porous, but there's nothing to show that they're any better in the other direction.

This is the most assinine remark yet, and that's saying something after what Kerry, Reid, Murtha, et al. have been spouting. Remember, one of their complaints is that we haven't controlled Iraq's borders. Does he think it would work better in the other direction?

Code Pinko--er,--Pink has announced plans to 'bird dog' Hillary! to prevent her from campaigning from the middle in 2008. Can't have any sane politics in the party! I used to think that it was conservatives who would rather be right than in power, but the Republicans have been behaving like an Alzheimer's marching band and the Dems still seem determined to reject anything that might win them swing votes.

Joe Lieberman, who seems to speak with a chronic down-in-the-mouth tone, sounds suddenly statesmanlike. He and Barak Obama are the only ones who have kept their heads.

Update: It appears that a few other Democrats have wakened to the disastrous effect this anti-war pro-defeat rhetoric could have on the upcoming elections. The Republicans are sure to use clips of Kerry, Dean, Murtha, Boxer and the rest.