Scott Allan's World

Which option at least attempts to keep us safe from Islamic terrorism even though it is falling short of success so far?

Which option is shameful partisanship, emboldens our bloodthirsty enemies, and proves to them we are spineless pansies?

I report, you decide.

From Breitbart:
Option 1 – Harry “Nancy” Reid:

The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.”I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.

Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.

“I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear … I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.”

Option 2 – President Bush:

“It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country from harm,” Bush told the invited audience in Tipp, Ohio.”A lesson learned was that — at least in my opinion — that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so that we do not have to face them here.”

I think the real question is do we want to win this war? I really have my doubts. We don’t lack for money, firepower, technology, or manpower so what is it? It’s resolve.

One side wants to put daisies in our rifles and love our enemies into submission, and the other side for some reason won’t use enough force to quickly and decisively win. If there is any parallel to Vietnam, as Reid implies in the article, it is that we have handcuffed ourselves again and refuse to use the force and tactics necessary to win against an enemy which apparently has more resolve than we do.