war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left

Wouldn't it be a nicer world today if everyone understood that sometimes you just have to deal strongly and firmly with people who hate your guts and want you to die? Wouldn't it be a nicer world today if everyone understood the real difference between victory and defeat? Wouldn't it be a nicer world today if everyone understood the horrible price we, as a nation, would have to pay if we should lose the war on terrorism? Wouldn't it be a nicer world today if Jimmy Carter had never won the presidential election?

Okay, so why the unexpected shot over Jimmy's bow, you may ask? Well, I gonna tell ya'! Remember when Jimmy was in the White House and the Shah of Iran was being overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini? Carter's official stand was to sit by and do nothing (something he was very good at, by the way). The Shah pleaded for assistance, the Carter administration turned their collective backs on him, allowing his demise to play itself out without resistance, in spite of the fact that Iran, at the time, was our strongest, and most loyal ally in the middle east.

It is no secret that the Shah had serious humanitarian issues that Jimmy just could not morally deal with, so he basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. The Ayatollah walked in, took over the Iranian government, and the rest is history.

Jimmy Carter is allegedly a very moral man. And there is nothing wrong, at all, with having high moral standards. We could all, no doubt, do better in that department, and the world would be a much better place for it. But there's a problem here, and that problem is this: If you are at odds with an enemy who is lacking in morality, and harbors evil intentions against you (he hates your guts), you need to understand the importance of defeating him by whatever means necessary before he defeats you. No 'rules of engagement'. No Geneva Convention. Thanks to Jimmy, we are involved in a street fight of monumental proportion, and there ain't no rules in a street fight.

I honestly can't understand why people on the left cannot grasp this concept. It ain't that tough! You either win or you lose. There is no middle way. It is just that basic and simple.

Victory: The winning of a battle, war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left f

er Jimmy's bow, you may ask? Well, I gonna tell ya'! Remember when Jimmy was in the White House and the Shah of Iran was being overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini? Carter's official stand was to sit by and do nothing (something he was very good at, by the way). The Shah pleaded for assistance, the Carter administration turned their collective backs on him, allowing his demise to play itself out without resistance, in spite of the fact that Iran, at the time, was our strongest, and most loyal ally in the middle east.

It is no secret that the Shah had serious humanitarian issues that Jimmy just could not morally deal with, so he basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. The Ayatollah walked in, took over the Iranian government, and the rest is history.

Jimmy Carter is allegedly a very moral man. And there is nothing wrong, at all, with having high moral standards. We could all, no doubt, do better in that department, and the world would be a much better place for it. But there's a problem here, and that problem is this: If you are at odds with an enemy who is lacking in morality, and harbors evil intentions against you (he hates your guts), you need to understand the importance of defeating him by whatever means necessary before he defeats you. No 'rules of engagement'. No Geneva Convention. Thanks to Jimmy, we are involved in a street fight of monumental proportion, and there ain't no rules in a street fight.

I honestly can't understand why people on the left cannot grasp this concept. It ain't that tough! You either win or you lose. There is no middle way. It is just that basic and simple.

Victory: The winning of a battle, war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left

ad serious humanitarian issues that Jimmy just could not morally deal with, so he basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. The Ayatollah walked in, took over the Iranian government, and the rest is history.

Jimmy Carter is allegedly a very moral man. And there is nothing wrong, at all, with having high moral standards. We could all, no doubt, do better in that department, and the world would be a much better place for it. But there's a problem here, and that problem is this: If you are at odds with an enemy who is lacking in morality, and harbors evil intentions against you (he hates your guts), you need to understand the importance of defeating him by whatever means necessary before he defeats you. No 'rules of engagement'. No Geneva Convention. Thanks to Jimmy, we are involved in a street fight of monumental proportion, and there ain't no rules in a street fight.

I honestly can't understand why people on the left cannot grasp this concept. It ain't that tough! You either win or you lose. There is no middle way. It is just that basic and simple.

Victory: The winning of a battle, war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left

rbors evil intentions against you (he hates your guts), you need to understand the importance of defeating him by whatever means necessary before he defeats you. No 'rules of engagement'. No Geneva Convention. Thanks to Jimmy, we are involved in a street fight of monumental proportion, and there ain't no rules in a street fight.

I honestly can't understand why people on the left cannot grasp this concept. It ain't that tough! You either win or you lose. There is no middle way. It is just that basic and simple.

Victory: The winning of a battle, war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left

war, or any struggle. Lose: To fail to win. That pretty well sums it up unless you want to factor in 'surrender', and I certainly don't care to go there. You can't almost win, and you can't almost lose, just like you can't be almost pregnant.

So, here we are in the year 2007, not having learned a thing from history, protesting a war that was essentially started many years ago by a man whose blind morality, and lack of courage and clarity, deterred him from protecting a free and innocent people. And now, George W. Bush is being vilified by the left for having the courage to do what must be done today, at all costs. We have no choice. We must win.

The leftists want to bring our troops home. They want to raise our taxes, raise the minimum wage, and give us national health care. Noble thoughts? Perhaps. I personally don't think so.

The question in my mind is this: How much health care are we really going to need if we are being systematically slaughtered by terrorists because our government, weakened by a naive and unrealistic left wing agenda, no longer has the will and the courage to protect us? And don't think for a minute that this cannot happen. History ultimately bears out fact, and the fact is this: The left wing agenda, under left wing leadership, has failed miserably in military endeavors in the past fifty years. It just ain't what they do. But then again, what DO they do?