Bush right: Democrats would fight war differently
Speaking at a fund-raiser for Gov. Bob Riley last week, President Bush said Democrats don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror.
Mr. Bush is right in this respect: Democrats would certainly prosecute the war differently.
If fighting the war on terror means invading and occupying a sovereign Mideast nation that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the Democrats are not up to the task.
If prosecuting the war means violating human rights by torturing and murdering prisoners who have no rights to trial, Democrats are unable to carry on the struggle.
If battling terror requires sending too few American soldiers — insufficiently armed — into harms way to squander the trust and respect of our allies and most of the rest of the world, Democrats don't have the will for this fight.
If the war on terror needs the advice of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is familiar with prosecuting a similar war in Vietnam, Democrats probably lack the means to fight it.
If winning the war means letting Osama bin Laden remain at large and helping him recruit an army of warriors willing to die, Democrats are unqualified to supervise the battle.
If winning the war on terror requires the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars while paradoxically making America less safe from terrorism, Democrats don't have the stomach.
It is a good thing Republicans have controlled the White House and both halls of Congress for the past six years. Otherwise, the war on terror might already be over.