Over at Blogs for Bush, Mark Noonan offers this for our consideration.

For your consideration and debate:

US Civil War: first time there is a Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Spanish/American War: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

World War One: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

World War Two: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

Korean War: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

Vietnam War: As soon as a Republican took over the botched war from the Democrats - very large, Democraitc anti-war movement.

Last Ten Years of the Cold War: Republican Preisdent - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Gulf War: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Kosovo War: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

War on Terrorism: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Discuss: what are we to make of this clear pattern of Democrats opposing any war they are not in charge of?

My personal thought on the matter -- Democrats consider the votes of their fellow citizens to be more dangerous than the bullets and bombs of enemies of America who seek to defeat and destroy our country. It is therefore more important that the elected representatives of the American people be defeated, rather than the enemy in the field.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.