For the record
 

So, since I can't substantively engage the former member of CREEP - 2004 style -- what do you think about the permanent campaign point in my post?

For the record
 

STP

For the record
 

I don't agree with it. Campaign mode to me means that you are always looking to the next election, and the elections are more important than policy. Constanly gauging public opinion etc.

I think the Clinton administration was in permanent campaign mode. Clinton was definitely very concerned with elections. This was very clear form his turn around after the 94 election disaster and his run to the arms of Dick Morris. Clinton changed his policy to get reelected.

With Bush, Policy trumps politics. Bush sticks to what he believes in and tries to get the country to go along with what he believes in. You may not like what he believes in, but I think it is totally erroneous to say that he is in permanent campaign mode because his policy is very consistent.

I think he is in permanent sell. He knows exactly what his policy is and is always trying to sell it. And he does a pretty good job of it. But if public opinion turns against him, he changes his selling tactics but never his policy.

For the record
 

BTW - I worked full time on 2000 but was just a volunteer consultant on 2004.

Permission not granted
 

I don't remember giving you permission to leave the board!!!!!!!!.

First Sidd left, and I was still trying to formulate his punishment and then Penske left. My operatives will hit him right after Sidd. It may take me a while, but if you leave I will get you also. My recommendation is that you don't make the same mistake as Sidd and Penske. They will soon regret their decision.

Don't force my hand. I don't want to have to get nasty in the Holiday season.

For the record
 

How do you explain the whole saga of the prescription drug benefit?

For the record
 

Hmm. I think I understand what you mean, and I'll accept your correction. I think that the "permanent sell" was the point I was getting at, and I do agree that he often/mostly doesn't seem to be governing by the polls.

There are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule with Bush, in terms of policy shifts based on public opinion (and/or the opinion of his base) -- prescription drugs, the 9/11 Commission, the budget-cutting bill post-Katrina. I suppose you could say those are tactical rather than strtegic policy.

S_A_M

For the record
 

And yet, you don't get so ANGRY! Must be the lotion.

S_A_M

For the record
 

Right. Other than when he opposes a Department of Homeland Security, and then backs it. Or when he decides that steel subsidies are bad, then good, no bad, wait, which side is he on in that? Nope, no political calculus involved in his steadfast consistency.

ETA: Scroll, then post, Not Bob.

Why the Bush Administration really LIKES Murtha, after all
 

Oh, Hankypoo! Good news! Your policy and Murtha's are joining as one!

The Administration looks to be preparing to leave. Not that we're leaving because we're losing, or because we're stuck. No, we're choosing to leave now because we WON! To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

LA Times

• Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
  
  In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
  
  President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
  
  The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.
  
  It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease. Meeting in Cairo, representatives of the three major ethnic and religious groups called for a U.S. withdrawal and recognized Iraqis' "legitimate right of resistance" to foreign occupation. In private conversations, Iraqi officials discussed a possible two-year withdrawal period, analysts said.

As SAM put it, it's alll good.

Are You Still Here?
 

Well, this is your second announcement of your departure, and yet, you're still here. Unlike your predecessors, however, Penske, Paigow, the Eagles, Cher, and Frank Sinatra, you didn't choose to allow a decent interval to elapse before your comeback tour. But that's cool. We love you, Hank. We really love you.

At the same time, I find it funny that you're coming back to throw rocks at other people when, as you so often point out, your posts here have been, in your words, dada. I would call it trolling, but what's in a name.

If had truly wanted to elevate the level of discourse, you had it in your power, as much as any of us. Something to keep in mind as you and Penske plan your second reunion tour.

For the record
 

I think an administration has to choose priorities, and then with the rest of the stuff not buck public opinion so as to screw up the priorities. In addition, there may be some policies were they don't really care that much and take position that they think are political beneficial but when it turns out they are not they simply drop or change.

I don't think Bush really cared much about the drug benefit. I think the same was with Gay marriage. However he used Gay marriage to gain political capital to use on other issues.

I think all administrations are the same when it comes to this but some are more willing to sacrifice their main priorities than others. I Clinton was more willing to sacrifice his principles for political gain than Bush but it still is just a matter of degree. I think in the end I think there was some stuff Clinton would not sacrifice for anything.

I think Clintons foray against Serbia was a suicidial political move. If he screwed it up, it would cost him dearly, and if he won it would not really help him at all (which happened). I think Clinton bombed Serbia purely based on principle. He felt he had a moral obligation. He was willing to risk everything just to do what was right. The rights inability to see Clintons' conviction made them unable to take advantage of the situation politically. All their screaming about it just made them look stupid.

I think Bush's foray into Iraq was the same. Once he could not get world opinon on his side, and he saw how virulently the Dems hated him and would use this policy against him, politically there was not much upside in going into Iraq. But I think he really felt he had to morally. It is the left inability to understand this (just like the right with Clinton on Serbia) that has made it so hard to take him on politically on this issue. I think the left would get more politicla capital out of Iraq if they would say that Bush did this out of pure intentions but it was incredibly naive and stupid. That angle would work and make them seem more statesmenlike and not hurt the publics confidence in their ability to deal with foreign policy and take on terrorism. But to try and say that Bush did this for selfish reasons (lininig the pockets of big business, imperialistic ambitions) or that he was sinister when he did this (he lied or manipulated the information) just doesn't wash with the public (because most people see his honest conviction) that they have not been able to leverage the situation politically (especially in 2004 when it really mattered). Bush is really vulnerable on his competance and intelligence (I don't think this is valid because he is smarter than the public perception and he has smart people working for him) but in politics perception is all that matters. Luckily, the Dems and liberals are too stupid to see this and try and focus on Bush being evil and sinister and it has completely failed.

I think Carter did almost everything based on principle (no matter how important the issue) and therefore got nothing accomplished. Reagan was pretty principled, but he was flexible on some issues and he was much better at getting along with his enemies than Carter.

Clinton started off principled but after the Health Care fisco got much more practical. The strange thing about Clinton is that he would sacrifice political capital and his policies for personal kicks. I think he is probably the only President since Roosevelt that risked his own agenda just for personal kicks.

I should add that there are many smart Dems that see Bush's vulnerability and know that the political attack of being well intentioned but naive and stupid is an incredibly effective political tactic. The right uses it against the left all the time (esepcially on things like welfare and other social issues). But unluckily for the smart Dems (like Hillary, Bill et. al.) the idiots (like Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) are drowning out and eclipsing the people that know what they are doing. The focus on Haliburton, Bush lied, Bush is evil, imperialism, immorality etc has completely drowned out the srategic Dems and blown their strategy: risky to go in, need world support (not to make it moral or legal, but to reduce the strain on the US and increase the chances of success) very naive, but if you went in no room for error, not enough troops, complete incompetance, no plan for the occupation, nor armor for cars, etc - I don't agree with these attacks but they are effective.

Just like Jesse Helms and Tom Delay are the Dems best friends, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean are Bushs best allies. You can't buy help like that.

What I find so shocking is that many seemingly somewhat intelligent people that post to this board join in the chorus of the politically incompetant. I guess I should be happy because it shows that the Dems are really screwed up, but it is shocking that lawyers on this board could be so politcally unsophisticated.

Uh, lawyers are professional dilletantes. We all graduated from the Cliff Claven Academy of Know-it-allism. Half the people on this board (and in society) get most of their knowledge from crap they cobble together from the web. Many others just believe these idiot facts such as Bush went to war to avenge his daddy as a matter of faith. They're angry strange people who want to believe in conspiracy theories and that there is a group of evil old white men who are ruining what would otherwise be a utopian America. Idiots. They're the same shit-for-brains cabal who think Hillary is actually electable. I don't even listen to people who try to discuss her electability. If you really think she has a chance, you have never seen any rural part if this country, and are simply too clueless to warrant my response. I'll just smile and excuse myself from the convo.

Like you, I stand for no taxes, minimal govt interference and liberal social rights for all. We're so alien to the standard political debate - even though our views are shared by the majority of the educated piublic - that there's really no use even talking to the lefties or righties anymore. I just get frustrated listening to their silliness. Its beyond stupid. I just wish I could take the classic bog govt liberals and Jesus freaks and send them all to some island, to fight each other with tactical nukes. But that ain't going to happen. We're stuck with them forever. Hopeless.

For the record
 

A shameless attempt to buy the elderly vote.

Wow - that was really cynical. Do you ever have any trouble getting up in the morning?

My only respone is that painting the enemy as evil is a useful tool for energizing the base but it is not a good tool for reaching for the center. All demonization of Clinton by the right did not help defeat Clinton in 1996 and it didn't work against Bush in 2004. It is easier to hate someone, or dismiss someone, if you see them as corrupt or evil, but most people in the middle will not buy it unless you have strong evidence.

However, I think you may be wrong about Hillary. I agree with you that she just does not connect with Middle America the way her Husband did.

However, I think middle America relates to her more than you think. Especially women. Middle America does not love her but they do seem to somewhat respect her. Getting the center to respect you, and to get the far left to love you is a tough balancing act that she can pull off. The far left had to learn to love Bill Clinton and in the beginning they were skeptical of him. But for some reason, except for a few exception like Cindy Sheehan, the left really love Hillary. She is a superstar of the Liberals and W. showed that if you really energize your base you can win without the strong love of the center. You can win by simply not pissing off the center and energizing your base.

Unlike her potential primary opponents she seems to be able to reach for the center without pissing off the base.

The main problem I see for her is that the far right hate her beyond all rational belief. That intense hatred may create a large turnout that could be a problem. However, I wouldn't totally right her off.

That is my analysis, but on choosing the thorobreads I am wrong as often as I am right.

For the record
 

Well, I agree with you, but I would have thought that his stated principles would run counter to spending hundreds of billions of dollars to expand an entitlement. I guess I saw the whole program as somewhat contrary to his beliefs.

edited to fix spelling

For the record
 

This shows your prejudice. A liberals belief that conservatives don't care about the poor or elderly. Most conservatives care about the poor and the elderly but want to make sure the money spent on the problem fixes the problem in the cheapest way possible.

Bush always said he thinks government should do a few things and do them well. He may be for limited government but he definitely believes in a safety net. I am sure he believes that the elderly, especially the poor elderly should get free prescription drugs.

The prescription drug benefit may not have been delineated exactly the way he liked, but I am sure he considered the fact that many poor old people can get drugs as a benefit (although an expensive one).

Many conservatives felt there were cheaper and more efficient ways to get drug benefits to the old people that needed it and this was not the best way. But they had no problem with the goal.

For the record
 

I didn't mean to suggest that Bush was opposed to ensuring that the elderly can get adequate health care. But the program adopted bears very little resemblence to the ways that conservatives has usually advocated achieving this goal -- e.g., the fact that the program was more expensive than the Democratic alternative.

You suggest that Bush places policy before politics. A true test of this would be to find an instance where Bush has made a political sacrifice in the name of conservative policy. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Although the question is tough, because Bush has taken as a lesson of his father's presidency the need to keep the conservative base happy, so he often seems to act conservatively for political reasons rather than for principle, as when he nominated Alito.) For example, he barely talked about Social Security reform during the '04 campaign, only to throw himself behind it after he had been elected and would not face the voters again.

Let us pause here to observe that in the prior breath you expressed shock at "lawyers on this board [being] so politcally unsophisticated." Heal thyself, physician.

The Pendulum
 

No. I just surf along and hope to enjoy the ride.

Here's another way of looking at the dilletante/idiot problem in American politics. Political thought traditionally moved in huge pendulum shifts. One extreme to the other, with lemmings/opportunists/rubes glomming onto the arm as it shifted at a swift clip.

Nearly always, the solution to a problem, or at least the sensible approach, is in the middle. But that didn't happen with politics. We swung back and forth between Big Govt Libs to Small Govt GOPers.

Then came the 70s recession and Reagan. Now, there was no Big Govt party anymore. The Dems lost their plank. Their savior, Bubba, was a Rockefeller Republican. Both parties became the parties of small govt and an economically more kill-or-be-killed society.

So what do we argue about these days, when the parties are running on nearly identical platforms? Nothing of substance. The two parties spend all their time and resources trying to create "pendulum" issues. They try to indict one another or get people in a lather over abortion, or allegedly activist courts. They look for conspiracy theories. They try to differentiate themselves from one another to get the old peendulum shifting back and forth again, so they can start some "revolution."

There are no more revolutions of political thought in this country. The Right and Left are just pathetic fools bickering around a fat middle of moderates who just want to keep their taxes as low as possible.

The Dems can win any election they want if they just come out and say "I will lower taxes." People have given up on politics and politicians, except to the extent that they can make money in the system. We are a nation of people who vote with our pocketbooks. The people who want to start the pendulum again don't understand that, and thats why they keep making crazir charges at one another every day. They think they can somehow get the old back-and-forth rolling again. Ain't going to happen.

Your Royal Gayness!
 

Royal Marine leaders, dressing up as doctor and a Catholic school girl, and ordering that naked men prance around hitting each other upside the head, wrestling with heineys sticking up in the air and giving naked piggy back rides while a bunch of young men strip naked and watch. Concluded by the skinny doctor in drag beating the naked Chelsea boys up. "Just trying to make the Marines tough". Right!
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/imag...epage/vid1.jpg

For the record
 

I think the invasion of Iraq. The politically wise thing to do would have been to wait until after the elections to invade (like he did with Social Security). I know there was concern that Hussein would Gas our troops and with twenty thousand body bags coming home it would be hard to get reelected.

But Bush felt he had to go in sooner than later, so he went in. But that is why this stuff about WMDs is so ridiculous. The administration's worst fear was the Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons. That is why all the threats about massive retaliation and forcing everyone within a thousand miles of the front lines to have a full body chemical suit ready to put on in thirty seconds.

My fraternity brother who is a Lt. Col. said that his biggest problem during the war was all the false alarms for chemical attacks. Three to four times a day his entire battalian had to stop and put on those stupid suits. The understanding was that if you lost one solider to a gas or chemical attack (because they did not have their suit at the ready) you could kiss your career good bye.

But my friend said they could have been in Baghdad a week earlier if they weren't so paranoid about chemical and biological attacks.

For someone who believes he is "politcally competant", you write like shit.

For the record
 

You have got to be kidding me. Bush used the impending war as a political tool in '02, and he used it to the hilt again in '04. He took no political risk with the timing of what he did.

For the record
 

You have got to be kidding me. Are you trying to say that there is no risks in war? Bush had no idea how this war would turn out. For you to assume that he knew the outcome is absurd. It was a huge political risk. All wars are.

Ann Coulter
 

I often disagree with this women, but this one seems pretty logical. Where is the flaw in her reasoning?


NEW IDEA FOR ABORTION PARTY: AID THE ENEMY
November 23, 2005


In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.

Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).

What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and — during the war, while our troops are in harm's way — demands that we withdraw our troops.

In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."

Fed up with being endlessly told "the American people" have turned against the war in Iraq, Republicans asked the Democrats to show what they had in their hand and vote on a resolution to withdraw the troops.

By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)

The vote is all the more shocking because of what it says about the Democrats' motives in attacking the war — as well as alerting us to three members of Congress we really need to keep an eye on.

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

What are we to make of the fact that — as we now know — the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

Ann Coulter
 

Depends. Where's the reasoning?

For the record
 

2.

This sums up nicely why I think Bush acts honorably, but not always in a politic manner. In those issues for which he definitely sees a moral position, he takes it, polls be damned. For things like drug benefits, immigration, and the like, where he mostly just perceives differences of opinion (as opposed to a true "right or wrong"), he's all over the boards.

Ann Coulter
 

Here's the one flaw I see consistently in her reasoning.

What is "treason"?

To what are we beholden?

If I believe that my country is pursuing a path that will lead it to harm, and my actions in response are guided by a sincere desire to keep my country from that harm, can my anti-administration actions and words be deemed "treason"? Do I owe my allegiance to the current leadership of my country, or to my country? If I take actions or speak words that lead to a short-term harm to my country, but generally result in my country moving in a direction that I deem to be more healthy, and more likely to leave my country improved and less harmed overall, am I not truly serving my country?

I think her flaw is her fixation on "treason". I don't think that what she describes in her columns is treason. I think she could use the word "stupidity" and be far more accurate and far less offputting. Her message gets lost because she riles in too visceral a way.

I'm sure every person who thinks that our war in Iraq is horribly wrong, and who is fighting politically to end that war, is serving their conception of what our country is, or, at least, should be. I could use the "treason" label easily on a Galloway, or on any American counterpart actively serving anti-American interests for personal gain. But, just as we weren't treasonous in the sixties or seventies as we (stupidly, and without placing the proper value on educating ourselves to reality) fought to end a war, so too the current dissent isn't treason.

Ann Coulter
 

Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.

She asks the question whether the vote in the house might not show that the "anti-war" movement doesn't really believe what it says.

Of course, the insulation is that most dems are staying pretty silent on the issue and letting the extremes carry their water. That way they can shift position when the polls show (See today's WP poll) that the cut and run arguments are not gaining public support.

It is perhaps not treason to keep quiet in such circumstance, but is it the behavior we should expect from the leaders of a party that will ask to lead the country in a few more years?

Ann Coulter
 

Actually, I think the liberal use of the word "treason" detracts from any point she may make.

Are you saying that Murtha did this to get votes in a future election? Doubtful.

Another way to view this is that we don't have the same wacky left that we had in Vietnam. The Bush Administration must pray nightly for the same collection of vocal anitwarriors that Nixon had and so successfully demonized.

You saw a microcosm of this with Murtha, in which the GOP stance for the first couple of days was to declare that Murtha, whom they've lionized for agreeing with them in the past, was secretly a pinkco commie-lover who was sleeping with Michael Moore. This pretty sight reached its zenith with a pissant Republican freshman in the House calling the Purple-Hearted and Bronze-Star wearing Murtha a coward on the House floor.

Eventually the GOP either reached its threshhold for self-loathing over this tactic, or realized that it simply wouldn't work, because the next day Murtha was, in GOP eyes, suddenly a "good man" who was entitled, like every good American, to question the war.

It's worth asking, is this the behavior that we should expect from leaders of a party who control every lever of federal power?

Ann Coulter
 

Transparent pot-stirring, both by you and by Coulter. I will not take the bait.

[eta -- But I'm glad Bilmore did.]

For example, no serious person could attribute those motivations to John Murtha, or to the many Republican Senators who voted for the recent resolution in support of the vague, no-timetable phased withdrawal (which was not much different than Murtha's actual proposal).

[eta -- Also, here is one more flaw in her "logic" -- Voting against a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq right this minute is not "gutless" or "hypocritical" -- even if you think the occupation has been mismanaged, think we should withdraw the troops ASAP, and/or think that our presence in Iraq is now doing more harm than good. Coulter's position is pure sophistry.]

S_A_M

Ann Coulter
 

Of course, you're then stuck at that ultimate issue - do they do so for personal power and enrichment and aggrandizement, or because getting your party in power is what allows the "right" policies and philosophies and thinking to guide your country to its proper path? Again, what is the ultimate motivation? If I truly thought that R thinking was harming my country, and that D thinking was what would rescue it, how would fighting for a D ascendency be treason? I'd be doing it for proper motives. If my country was helping Chavez kill bankers, and I thought this was entirely against what America stands for and was, in fact, bad action, would it be treason for me to find ways to undercut that effort and bring us back to correct thought, even if it meant that morale amongst the banker-killing soldiers dropped?

Ann Coulter
 

I don't think any of this happened.

Ann Coulter
 

Ann Coulter
 

You're missing the difference. The message read was "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." I saw that as, if we do this bad thing that Murtha is (again) calling for, we'd be cowards. She never called Murtha a coward. And, as far as the rest of your statement, about the GOP calling Murtha "secretly a pinkco commie-lover who was sleeping with Michael Moore", um, no. In spite of the fact that he's been calling for disengagement for more than a year or two, no one did that. The closest we got was a bunch of Kos-sacks yelling that the R's were calling Murtha a coward, sort of like my little sister yelling to my mom that I had hit her and getting me in trouble when I'd actually not touched her.

Ann Coulter
 

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I don't have a transcript handy where a Congressman describes Murtha and Moore buying Rent tickets together, so there's really nothing to this stuff, and the logical chasm from "cowards cut and run, Marines never do" being a teensy bit more than a sober criticism of a policy position is just too great.

Similarly, having GOP Congressmen say that, by making these statements, Democrats have cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our nemies? No biggie. It's kinda like saying that it's an unwise policy position, just with more colorful words.

Ann Coulter
 

That's not an accusation of cowardice or treason - that's an accusation of stupidity, and a rightful one. Go back to the statements of the war generals of the NVA concerning our anti-war movement - tremendously helpful to them.