Bush Scores a Home Run ....but the usual suspects slither from under their rocks..

President Bush hit a home run last night, flawlessly outlining the reasons for staying the course in Iraq. But of course, the usual suspects are out, seditiously doing their best to undermine our efforts:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency.

And Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the September 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.

Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq -- a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

First of all, President Bush made it very clear last night that the number of boots on the ground in Iraq was directly proportional to the number needed:

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders. (emphasis mine)

The problem with the dems is that the fact that the war on terror, and in particular the war in Iraq is a WAR is at best immaterial. The fact that they can open the Viet Nam playbook and use the war as a political football is what they are most interested in. The lessons of Viet Nam are clear: Let politicians control the war, we lose. President Bush is well aware of that lesson. Too bad the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are willing to sacrifice more American lives on the altar of political opportunism.

Second, the link between this war and our overall strategy post 9-11 could not be more apparent:

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we've witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder, and make our nation safer.

But Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and "Swimmer" Kennedy, blinded by pure political ambition and opportunism, continue to treat this war as nothing more than an opportunity to "get Bush"; to hell with the consequences. One can only be thankful that these seditious traitors were not in power during WWII; for our homes may very well have been sporting lampshades courtesy of our cousin Jaime, and soldiers may have been very well been doing the goosestep down Main Street.