You know he’s gonna get away with it. Sure he might lose a point or two in the ratings. The rest of the MSM pick poke at him a little, but they won’t deliver anything close to a killing blow, else it could be there necks on the bock next time. Sure Fox will give it some decent coverage, but it’s still a cable channel with a limited audience, most of which already trends liberal. I still think that Bush will win the election, but the events of the past few weeks convince me that we probably won’t win this war. Oh, I don’t think we’re all gonna die, at least not quickly, but soon Europe will fall to the enemy. The other major powers will come to some kind of accomadation, and keep selling arms. America will fight on for a while, but isolated abroad, and, more fatally, undermined at home, America will give ground. Key allies will be lost to the tide of terror. World trade will be constricted, which will hurt American prosperity, undercutting the ability to pay for the war.

Let’s face it – at least 20% of Americans really don’t the US want to win this war, and another 15% aren’t really sure who they want to win (can’t decide who is less evil, the Taliban or the Bu$shitler). That first 20% contains a disproportionate number of opinion makers and cultural leaders. There’s also very little “loyal opposition” left in politics (sorry Joe, you’re all alone). If losing the war in Iraq is what is required to unseat Bush, the vocal leadership of the Democrat party seems to consider it a small price to pay.

Winning battles and winning fights is often a matter of guts and grit. Often the winner is the guy who is too stupid and/or too stubborn to know he’s beaten. War is not about who is right, it is about who is left. The Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) demand some kind of Platonically perfect version of a war, else its a quagmire, it’s Vietnam all over again!! What would these lefties and squishes (paging Andrew Sullivan) have said after Guadacanal, Kasserine Pass, the Bulge or, god forbid, Dieppe. At the very least they would have called for Churchill and Roosevelt to be impeached, Eisenhower, MacAurthur, Bradley, King and Nimitz to be sacked. Of course, if Nimitz, Eisenhower et al had been sacked, they would not have written a book and campaigned against FDR while the war was still going on (MacAurthur – well, that’s another story).

After WW II the Germans talked about “a stab in the back”. Let’s see – Germany had been at war for 4 years, was starving, they were running out of raw materials to build munitions, every male of even vaguely military age was on the front line, and America, with its almost unlimited manpower and industry was getting into the game. Constrast that with the comemteriat throwing up their soft little hands in sespair and racing each other to declaw a quagmire after only FIVE DAYS because of a little sandstorm – and because the enemy had the unmitigated gaul to actually counterattack. When the paper of record spills more ink on the abuse at Abu Grhraib than all of the heros and medal winners of this war, Saddam;s abuses and the very real successes of the troops on the ground combined? When a major American daily runs picture of cheap Russian porn and tries to pass it off as actions of the military -and nobody gets fired? At least Piers Morgan was sacked – shows that a lefty rag in England has more integrity than it’s American version. How is it that the WaPo is letting a gen Xer with a hate-on for America run its Baghdad bureau? How in the hell can you win a war when half of the opinion-makers think like that? Why is this post/rant starting to sound like Jadakiss?

I’m frankly shocked we’ve done as well as we have.