I think it's safe to say that had we adopted any of the three resolutions I listed as law, we would be royally screwed at this point.

This is as close to a plan as I can find for the Democratic platform for fighting the war on terror.

Much of the party can't even directly acknowledge that Iraq is a central battle in the war on terrorism. Moreover, many can't acknowledge that there is a war on terror. OBL has no problem acknowledging either situation, and he is not alone with regard to radical islamic groups.

Given the view that radical Islam takes towards percieved weakness, half of the politicians running for office in this country spell definite disaster for this country - and it's not the Republican half.

BTW, I didn't make up those positions listed in the resolutions I posted. They were written by Democrats in positions of authority. I didn't attribute to them something they didn't say. This really is the position of at least one Senator and presidential candidate and 106 representatives. All of whom are in positions of authority.

The ONLY way that over-the-horizon forces can participate in any military situation is via an air campaign. Essentially, the message is, "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone - otherwise we'll bomb you.". We've already seen how that works out in Lebanon. In fact, isn't one of the major criticisms of how things in iraq have gone so far lack of ground forces?

I'll stick with the dictionary definition of diplomacy, it involves more than just listening.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone