Then, in come the Democrats, and the war policy changed. Rumsfeld was, rightfully and much to my dismay at the time, fired for leading a failed war effort. The president was forced to change his war policy, and Sec. Gates was brought in to clean up the mess. The surge is finally changing the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus went from training Iraqi soldiers to managing a failed war effort, and he is beginning to turn the war around.

Obviously, Democrats would have liked nothing better than to end the war effort and bring the troops home. However, this new strategy is a direct result of the Democrats taking Congress. It may not have been the result the Democrats wanted, but it is better than what we had before. If Democrats hadn’t sold their soul to the anti-war left they could take advantage of the success of the surge and claim it as a result of their being elected to office, because it is.

It is yet to be seen how effective the surge will be long term. In the end, the surge may fail and the Democrats would have made the right political move by aligning with the anti-war crowd. However, if the surge succeeds in providing sustainable security in Iraq, in the words of Dem. Rep. James Clyburn, “it would be a problem for us”.

The Democrats may find that they should have taken a lesson from the British House of Commons in 1942. In 1942 the House of Commons narrowly failed a no confidence vote in Winston Churchill. Churchill was driven to appoint Gen Montgomery to lead the war effort. In November 1942 Montgomery defeated Rommel and started to retake Africa. Notice how the opposition party at that time only wanted a new strategy for victory, and not a retreat. Petraeus may turn out to be Republicans white knight, but the Democrats could have owned his success if they hadn’t invested so heavily in opposing the war.

    Let’s start with the first amendment (you know that one about free speech). Much has been said about how unfair the fairness doctrine is, but that doesn’t stop leading libs from jumping on board. During a radio interview, John Kerry said that the doctrine should return and that its absence has allowed conservatives to “squeeze out opinion of opposing views”. Isn’t “squeezing out opinion of opposing views” the very thing the fairness doctrine will do? Here is some news for John Kerry: the absence of the fairness doctrine has given people the choice not to listen to your illogical, depressing liberal viewpoints. How many votes away from being president was Kerry?

    He isn’t the only one. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said plainly, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine”. Among the others are: Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Dianne Feinstein. Dennis Kucinich also wants it back, but after he supported slavery reparations for black people at the Democratic debate I see this as a move to the right. I’d like to give some insight into what the fairness doctrine is like in action. Here is a quote from Bill Ruder, former assistant secretary of commerce under JFK, "Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right wing broadcasters, and hope that challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too costly too continue". Hmmmmm.

    Next, how about that second amendment? The latest defender of the right to bear arms is Joe Biden. At the Democratic debate he mocked a gun owner as not being “mentally qualified” to own a gun. Oh and what is “mentally qualified” by your standard Senator? Would turning in my gun for a hybrid car make me more qualified? The truth is senator, judging by your remarks, I don’t think your “mentally qualified” to be president. However, by the off chance that you do get elected president I hope you will disarm your secret service because we all know that people who use guns have a better chance at hurting themselves than the person their shooting. In fact, forget about being President, you can tell your armed body guards now that in order to be “mentally qualified” you should negotiate with a criminal instead of defending yourself. Or maybe the Senator thinks that only the powerful people in government should be able to protect themselves with guns while all the rest of us get our knives and forks taken away from us at the kids table? In any case, the sneering laughter from the crowd, and the look on Biden’s face was enough to make me turn the debate off.

    It amazes me the same people who want full constitutional rights for the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay also want to reinstitute the fairness doctrine to limit political speech. Oh liberals! I can’t wait for the report to come out saying how guns contribute to global warming. I guess it makes sense that liberals don’t want people to have guns because they have never liked defending themselves, or their country. With their “big new ideas”, as Senator Obama puts it, it seems like government is going to keep getting bigger, and deciding more things for us. I think we should start calling them socialists not liberals. The new definition of a liberal: liberal- see socialist.

Here are two examples of liberal Hitlermania that I can remember recently. MoveOn.org put together a video on its website comparing President Bush to Hitler. Senator Keith Ellison likened the President to Hitler and compared September 11th to the Reichstag fire.

However, liberals aren't the only ones using Hitler for political purposes. Conservatives go on and on about the 2008 Olympics as China's "coming out party" and compare it to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. Conservatives also compare the appeasement of Iran and the inaction of the global community to their pursuit of nuclear weapons to Nazi Germany.

While both sides will use Hitler for their own purposes, only the conservative's comparison makes any sense. So in the spirit of WW2 comparisons I would like to make my own that i haven't heard expressed, but have no doubt that it has been expressed.

Looking to the future of Iraq and the current situation in Iran, it is easy to see what liberals are trying and will try to do: they want to scare America away from using military force because of Iraq. In the aftermath of WWI the European powers were so devastated by the war that it drove them to appease Hitler until war was already upon them. While Iraq can in no way be compared to the amount of devastation caused by WWI, I do think it is worth noting the timidity that come out of post-WWI Europe, and will come out of post-Iraq if we don't win.

We must win in Iraq. Liberals will beat America over the head with the Iraq War again and again, just like they do with Vietnam. If America loses it's balls post-Iraq we won't be able to take on enemies such as Iran until its too late. We can't wait until Iran wants "breathing room" and Israel is a smoldering crater. We must win in Iraq and act now to, at the very least, destroy Iran's capability for nuclear weapons.

In response to a media dominated by liberals, conservatives did the only thing they could do: compete. Fox News was started in 1996 and has become the top rated cable news network on television. Alternatively, Democrats have responded to a conservative dominated AM radio by propping up Air America. However, unlike Fox News, Air America failed miserably. 

Liberals can not compete against conservatives on talk radio and are slowly losing their grip on the television news media. Now, they've abandoned the principles of a free market and are considering reinstating the fairness doctrine to stifle their opposition.

Here is a quote from Bill Ruder, former assistant secretary of commerce under JFK, "Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right wing broadcasters, and hope that challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too costly too continue". That's the fairness doctrine in action! Liberals? Hardly. Stalin would be proud.