Cluebat to ignoramus: We’re NOT a “democracy”— we’re is a democratic REPUBLIC. That means representative democracy— NOT mob rule.

Moreover, YOUR Commander-in-Chief was re-elected by >50% majority— and there is NOTHING your mid-term results can do to thwart the will of the people.

The 2006 mid-term election results were NOT a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war “Ned the Red” Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats’ pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: “Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections” — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower’s sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson’s sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford’s sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America’s greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a “tsunami” — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ epic victory last Fall, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that’s assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats’ total gain is less than this week’s gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, the 2006 midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans’ “Stay until we win” Iraq policy or the Democrats’ “Stay, leave … stay for a while then leave … redeploy and then come back … leave and stay … cut and run … win, lose or draw policy,” I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a “new direction” in Iraq. Yeah, it’s called “reverse.” Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq “Operation Somalia.”

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

“we’re is a democratic REPUBLIC.”

Oh, that’s good grammar!

“Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.”

The Republicans would do better for the troops if they would just bring them home. Remember, we weren’t supposed to be in Iraq in the first place. We went to Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and we should’ve stayed there. But no, we had to side-trip into Iraq for God-knows-what!

We’re NOT a “democracy”— we’re in a democratic REPUBLIC.

There feel better, typo nazi 10:42?

And your complaint— over our “sidetrip” to Iraq— is with Bubbah, not Bush (see also, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

Leftists didn’t want Saddam removed and now they want to give the place over to worse players.

How about listening to what our soldiers in the field want for a change and pour yourselves a nice cup of STFU? http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002979.php

Speaking of listening to soldiers in the field… http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/dailyUpdate.html Quick summary: 72% of U.S. troops polled in Iraq wanted all U.S. forces out in a year. And that was just about a year ago. So if we cared what the troops thought, they’d all be home by now.