The only reason I can see the dems make these statements is that they are convinced we are going to finish this thing off. And if these dems are convinced, then I’m convinced.

Hillary will change on a dime. Not her dime of course.

Edwards is locked in.

Both are shysters. Maybe they’ll meet in Hell to join in that hockey game. I bet Hillary commits I high sticking offense first.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

Really? My questions is, was there ever a time when our troops were losing?

And we’re not just talking Joe Lieberman here.

One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.

Durbin? Dick “our troops are Nazis” Durbin?? There must be a hockey game going on in hell right about now…

So my question is this: if the surge continues to show better and better results, what’s the over-under on how long it takes Hillary or Edwards to make another 180 degree switch and suddenly be once again in favor of the war?

Begin with this bleat:

My biggest problem I have when the discussing Iraq and terrorism with right-wingers is that for 3 1/2 years as chaos grew and grew in the sandbox the problems were downplayed by the 43 Admin and used as portray dissent with the war as unpatriotic.

So, what you’re saying is, when the troops are in harm’s way, you have no problem with cutting off their intelligence, contriving fake stories of so-called atrocities, demeaning them as Nazis, and encouraging the enemy to hang in there. Because that’s what your side has been doing in the name of “dissent”.

Next, Tommy tries to argue that playing footsie with terrorists or their backers doesn’t mean the Dems are soft on them:

It floors me it really does sometimes that the fact that the people running the war,running the executive branch,running the legaslative branch and in numerous cases PROFITED from the war( i.e Tommy Franks book sales,Tenet’s,Bremer’s,etc to say nothing about executives running Halliburton,Blackwater and KBR) has the audacity to try to blame Democrats as being “soft on terrorism”.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, soft is as soft does. You want to shake the impression that you’re soft on terrorism? Act like it. Stop assuming the worst about your own government while making excuses for terrorists. Understand that the enemy in Iraq is AQ, and support the mission of destroying that bunch instead of declaring defeat at every possible turn, like Harry Reid does. Or promising to make nice with their suppliers, like Obama does. In short, when it comes to terrorists, grow a set.

As for people making profits, since when did that become illegal? Has anyone been indicted for anything illegal in connection with that? No?? If you’ve got evidence, let’s have it…or better yet, let the appropriate DA have it.

Better sit down before you read the next one:

It’s also true that many Democrats don’t view what is going on overseas it’s the nation of the U.S.A is at war. Just only 43′s supporters are at war not them.

Tommy, you’re actually right on something here. You’ve seen through the Dem’s smokescreen and exposed their ‘we support the troops’ for the nonsense it is.

Consider this, Tommy, because it should tell you a lot about the difference between the leftists and the conservatives: Conservatives want the U.S. to win – no matter who the President is. We’ll be just as determined to crush AQ in 2009 even if the Dems win the White House. The left, on the other hand, wants the US to lose if they’re not in charge. For us it’s country first, then party. The left has it the other way around.

Explain to me how that makes me a moonbat PCD?

Perhaps it’s that you continue to blame the Bush admin for funding, when it’s Congress that controls the budget, not the executive branch. Didn’t you have any civics or US government classes tommy, or were you too blitzed during them to remember anything?

The BDS-everything is Bush’s fault meme is getting a bit tiresome.

When did you stop beating your wife??

I’m going to call you on your moonbat spewings. Prove point by pointless point your spewings about who profited off this war. Just make sure you include the Kerrys, Kennedys, Feinsteins, Reids, Soros, and Buffet in your answer. Otherwise stuff it in your bong.

The only reasonable answer for Romney would have been along the lines of “If you want my sons’ opinions, or comments, or intentions ask them. Next question?”

Idiot lefties just cannot understand the concept that a) the US military recruits adults, not children, and b) parents don’t “send” their children to war. They also cannot understand that the chickenhawk argument (which this was) is an assault on the Constitution.

My biggest problem I have when the discussing Iraq and terrorism with right-wingers is that for 3 1/2 years as chaos grew and grew in the sandbox the problems were downplayed by the 43 Admin and used as portray dissent with the war as unpatriotic.

Hmmm…I’d rewrite this a bit

My biggest problem I have (sic for grammar) when discussing Iraq and terrorism with left-wingers is that for 3 1/2 years as the war effort ebbed and flowed in the sandbox the problems were exaggerated and used for such crass partisan reasons to beat the administration around the head that it became impossible to get a real feel for what problems were real. It was too bad that such braying and defeatism was portrayed as somehow patriotic instead of seditious.