Republicans have two unjustified War on Terror attacks toward Democrats that must be debunked.
Attack: With no post-9/11 terror-related catastrophes in the U.S., America is therefore safer because of the offensive in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Response: There is no correlation between the tragic event of 9/11 and following calm. It should be argued that from 9/11 emerged worse results — war in Iraq, further destabilization of the Middle East. There is no substantive evidence that what the U.S. has done abroad has made Americans safer. Nothing.
Attack: Republicans positioning Democrats as disingenuous based on their disapproval of the Iraq War and their subsequent reluctant agreement to funding the mission.
Response: Believing the unjustified war must end and supporting troops with appropriate funding bills are mutually exclusive. Liberals realize that inadequately funding servicemen is wrong, regardless of their strategies to abort the Iraq quagmire. This isn’t a flip-flop, as it would like to be perceived.
The Democrats deny the “manifest reality” of the surge’s success, said the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But discrediting liberal agendas based on different criterion and a bait-and-switch are denials to the debate’s finer points.
Democrats are reluctant to acknowledge the success of the surge, but so are the Republicans.
Conservatives want to credit the surge a success without allowing a concession. They ignore the justified cause/effect: If violence is down in Iraq, then U.S. troops should come home.
The major point here is that the Republicans illegitimately continue to have their hands on the reins of this debate, and it must be stopped.
(Meanwhile: Bush plans on setting up a permanent U.S. troop presence in Iraq.)