Well, I've returning form visiting with my family, a little goose hunting, and a turkey and stuffing-induced hibernation to see that this thread has generated quite a bit of response, most of which I'm still reading.
I'd like to call attention to a few points earlier in the discussion, as follows:
One page 2, model 25 stated:
This dissent was written about by Communist Generals as to what made them hold on with the fight rather than seek peace.
(This running from Vietnam is still brought up by our enemies and if the dissent becomes louder then the terrorist will hold on longer.)
Do you know of some documented examples of the Communists, Vietnamese or otherwise, writing about the antiwar protests that occured in the United States, and likewise, do you know of documented examples of current enemies using such writings or writing about current antiwar protests? I'm not saying such items don't exist, but I would like references to the documents or items to which you refer.
You also stated within the same post:
Who would be the losers if we defeat terrorism in IRAQ? Of course the democrat party would as they have shown dissent against us winng and would rather cut and run. Plus the democrats have the most to gain should we lose as the politics from defeat would change the political scope of America.
I think that this is a bit overstated. No Democrat, antiwar or otherwise, would be happy if the terrorists win in Iraq (I'm not entirely certain what a terrorist victory or defeat would look like, which is part of the problem with the current conflict). Certainly, if the war goes badly for the current administration, it stands to reason that support for the current administration will decrease and the likelihood that the American public will vote against them within the next set of elections increases. However, that is very different from saying that the Democrats are actively rooting for American defeat in Iraq because it will help them politically, which is what you seem to imply. To make such a claim, you would have to have unparalleled access to Democratic strategy meetings or bona fide statements along those lines made by mainstream Democratic politicians.
On page 2, roy reali made the following statement:
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the insurgents in Iraq are fully aware of who says what about the war. If they percieve weakness or indecision on our part they could emboldened to attack further.
Again, documentation is needed to verify this statement. I don't doubt that insurgents watch CNN either, but that is different from saying that they are taking succor from dissent and protest. The "if we say this, they may do that" is simply that, a what if, not a concrete demonstration of related cause and effect.
On page 2, model 25 stated:
There is very little even sided public debate as 90% of the media is liberal. Tell you what if you don't believe that then answer this"How many pro gun stories have you ever seen as opposed to anti"? The media hates Bush and would rather see the country fail than have him for President.
It's all well to blame the ostensibly liberal media, but that same media pretty much gave Bush a pass on the initial build-up to the conflict. There was no serious questioning of the administration's initial claims that Iraq possessed WMDs at the outset of the war by the mainstream media, despite the fact that many credible sources, such as the UN's own reporting teams, clearly called such claims into question. I made the contention before and I'll say it again - for the media, it's more about selling papers than playing politics these days. Point in case: Bob Woodward.
More to come ...
E.
+1, GoSlash27.