"A problem to be solved".

Memeorandum and RCP are full of articles returning us to the same dreary arguments about Iraq, politics, etc. Now it's the Democrats' show, and the harridans of the anti-war left were out in force to demand that they shut down this war just as they abandoned South Vietnam to the tender mercies of the Communists.

What I haven't heard from anybody is what the Democrats propose to do after we come back with our tail between our legs. Assume that Iraq is lost, that Bush will be prohibited by some unconstitutional bill or resolution from using force against Iran's nuke project. We still have the terrorist problem, and it will be invigorated and encouraged by our backdown.

Most Democrats I've heard can only gripe that we haven't captured Osama bin Laden, but that would involve invading Pakistan which already has nukes. Maybe they think we can teleport him out. But I can't believe that they really think that capturing him would put an end to Islamist terrorism. First, they wouldn't want him killed. That would show how weak our commitment to human rights is. They wouldn't want him kept at Gitmo. I guess they'd give him a trial and sentence him to room with the Unabomer for the rest of his life.

But then what? They turned 9/11 into an excuse to expand the federal unionized work force. They demand that every shipment into this country be scanned for radioactivity, as if the terrorists would be that dumb. John Kerry would just declare terrorism a nuisance and go back to the days when embassy bombings and attacks on our naval vessels were just background noise. Speakerette Pelosi would redefine it from a war to be won to a problem to be solved. That's right, when life hands you lemons turn them into lemonade!

They keep grousing that we went into Iraq without a plan. What's their plan? I have a sinking feeling that it's to deal with terrorism by providing national health care.