redblueamerica.com

     Alas, Democrats are starting to smell an American victory in Iraq.  Liberals are like  the Russians declaring war on Japan in the late spring of 1945-- late to the fight and full of pomp and circumstance.  Fifty years from now, when Baghdad is hosting the Olympic games, how will Democrats convince the American public they were a "full partner" in liberating the country?

    This is a tough sell, even for the new Democratic secular messiah, Barack Obama.  Christ may have walked on water, but Obama has only recently returned to the cradle of civilization.  Obama has recently scubbed the gospels of his website, which asserted the surge as a failure.  Somehow future cannons must read that Obama's timetable for withdrawl was the imprimatur for American success in Iraq.

   This is not without precedent.

     Fifty years ago, Democrats saw another Messiah in their midst named John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  There was only one problem:  Kennedy was a anti-communist.  This didn't bode well for a Democratic party that viewed Alger Hiss as a modern day John The Baptist.  Kennedy wanted to take American foreign policy back to the glory days of Harry Truman and Dean Acheson-- the two greatest Democrats this country has ever produced.

    After his tragic death, Democrats could not reconcile the JFK legacy with the debacle in Vietnam.  Kennedy had started the war.  Could Democrats somehow convince the American public he hadn't.  To quote Obama,  "yes we can!"  Democrats simply released liberal academia from their moonlighting jobs as communist patsies in the State Department, and turned them towards rewriting the history of American involvement in Indochina.  They even found a modern day Barabass to seal the deal.

     Richard Nixon.

   Despite John Kerry's timeline of history, Nixon assumed office in January of 1969, on the platform of ending the war in Vietnam.  What Democrats could not understand was that Nixon was going to end the war by winning it.  Sound familiar?  Democrats still can't understand that winning a war also means ending it.  In one month Nixon cut American casualties in half, and subsequently bombed Hanoi to the Paris peace table. ( McCain must have enjoyed those sounds in his hotel room)

     This was unacceptable to Democrats, who predicated their entire platform on making sure America lost the war in Indochina to the Communists-- I'm sorry, I mean "Agrarian Land Reformers."  It seems like the only time Democrats are in favor of indiscriminate bombing is when its done on white people such as was done in Dresden and Belgrade.  Fortunately, Truman was in office when it was time to take care of Japan.  Had he not, Obama might not have been born...Hmm.

     After Democrats lost Vietnam, they turned their attention to prosecuting Nixon for the same crimes that were commited by Jack and Bobby Kennedy with impunity.  If you don't believe me, just ask Martin Luther King when you get to heaven.  After Watergate, Democrats turned their show trials against the intelligence community.  The Church commisions singlehandedly destroyed the CIA intelligence network that took decades to build, primarily  to blunt the Communists stated goal of world revolution.  Liberals like Communists, so that was out of the question and had to go.  What was it replaced with?  Those same academics that convinced America Nixon was responsible the Vietnam fiasco.  The CIA replaced American patriots with pantywaists who couldn't beat their sister in a fistfight.

    Is it any wonder that the CIA had no idea what was going on in the Soviet Union before it collapsed?  Or Iraq? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Or Pakistan? Or Libya?  Need I go on?  Thank God for the Mossad and MI6, or we might have Sharia law in San Francisco...wait...maybe that would be an improvement!  

     Which brings me to the Cold War.  Have you ever heard a Liberal interviewed about the Cold War.  Its hillarious.  They actually use the word "we" when discussing America's victory over Soviet Ideology,  as if they somehow contributed to the cause in ways that were other than detrimental.  If we were talking about WWII, they might have a leg to stand on.  Even then, they were late to the fight.  I'm so sick of the emphasis placed on Republican isolationists in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Liberals were in the same boat.  They were perfectly content to watch imperialist Britain burn like a Roman candle.  Not until their beloved Soviet Union was attacked by Hitler did the Liberals and the unions of this country grow a moral spine.

    Don't get me wrong.  Democrats are still capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.  The hard left in this country still cherish the possibility of an American defeat.  But it seems Obama is looking to bring "Hope And Change" to Iraq, and rewrite the history books in the process. This time it might not work.  Democrats should stick with what they love, like how global warming affects the eating habits of polar bears.  Leave the heavy lifting to the patriots.

     After all, Hanibal marched with elephants, not donkeys.