So their [Democrats] "support" is objectively worthless. The indignant protest that "of course" "we support our troops" isn't support, it's a straddle, and one that emphasizes the Democrats' frivolousness in the post-9/11 world. A serious party would have seen the jihad as a profound foreign-policy challenge they needed to address credibly. They could have found a Tony Blair -- a big mushy-leftie pantywaist on health and education and all the other sissy stuff, but a man at ease with the projection of military force in the national interest. But we saw in Connecticut what happens to Democrats who run as Blairites: You get bounced from the ticket. In the 2004 election, instead of coming to terms with it as a national security question, the Democrats looked at the war on terror merely as a Bush wedge issue they needed to neutralize.I wonder if they really think we're stupid enough to believe them when they say they support the troops [you know they do - Ed]. The best way to support the troops is to get behind the mission and see it all the way through. If we don't, the resulting defeat will be worse than a dozen Vietnams.
Read the whole thing of couse.