I'll be completely blunt with you, America, I am fed up with the stance that today's garden variety, typically incorrect liberals are taking regarding the war in Iraq. Too often they fail to show an understanding of the importance of claiming a win in Saddam Hussein's former terrorist paradise, claim that every single aspect of the war is a failure or is in the process of failing and that the only solution to the crisis is to cut and run. It is a stance so annoyingly wrong one sometimes expects to hear a musical jingle accompanied by the "If I Only Had a Brain" lyrics from the Wizard of Oz playing along in the background.

The common opener for the garden variety, typically incorrect liberal regarding Iraq deals with the rationale for entering the Middle Eastern country in the first place. To act like they truly understand the issue, they recite the most recent Bush-bashing sermon delivered by Rev. Howard Dean or the patron saint of liberalism, Michael Moore. More than likely this intelligent statement concocted by those two airheads goes something like, "Bush lied, thousands died." The rhyme is supposed to make the liberal appear intelligent because (heavy sarcasm) Lord knows that it is so hard to rhyme words together (end heavy sarcasm). From the very beginning, the liberal appears to have the upper hand when, back in the world of reality, they do not.

Nevertheless, this little rhyme shows a complete misunderstanding of how the war began. The garden variety, typically incorrect liberal fails to recall that not only did the United States believe that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but so did the international community. France, Germany, Russia and the rest of the U.N.(ecessary) believed that the former Iraqi dictator had WMD and was capable of using them on his own citizens, US interests and allies and whoever the former leader felt like using them on. Weapons inspector Hans Blix went so far as to say that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." Simply put, everyone thought that Iraq had WMD and could use it whenever it liked. If anything, the bumper stickers out there should read "Bush and everyone else in the internationally community lied, thousands died." Ah, but that would not be catchy to the garden variety, typically incorrect liberal so scratch the idea. My mistake.

The garden variety, typically incorrect liberal also fails to recognize the 500+ WMD that were found after the war and brought up by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in late June. They refuse to accept that Saddam had WMD because their entire argument about the war would crumble as quickly as the Clinton's anger management recently.

Typically, the "Bush lied, thousands died" argument, as wrong as it is, is tied into cut and run politics. It is used as rationale for surrendering to the terrorists in Iraq because, for some bizarre reason, if we enter any war under (supposed) false pretenses, the logical solution is to get out as quick as you can no matter the consequences.

Those consequences seem to be above the garden variety, typically incorrect liberal's head when it comes to considering what would occur if the troops pulled out of Iraq right now. Most garden variety, typically incorrect liberals seem to think that if we backed out right now, the Iraqi's would pop the champagne and dance in the streets. Terrorists would lay down their arms in thanks and would use their suicide bombs as fireworks instead of weapons. Osama bin Laden would fly to the US and drink the finest wine available with President Bush at the White House while they discuss the upcoming action in the National Football League. (Being a former criminal himself, bin Laden would constantly speak up for the Baltimore Ravens whenever the AFC North would be brought up.) Afterwards, Bush and bin Laden would travel to the closest elementary school and give the best student there a pony with 24K gold-plated horseshoes.

Right. And the next day, Ted Kennedy will quit drinking and admit to killing Mary Jo Kopechne. Sorry folks, but this is a pipe dream.

We as a nation have to stay the course in Iraq and, if anything, send more troops in to get the job done faster. We are turning a ravaged country into the beginnings of what could be a modern nation in Iraq complete with a Constitution and democratic government. Remember how long it took the United States to get this sort of thing going? Now take a look at how long we've been at work in Iraq trying to get a similar thing to happen.

This process is not supposed to be as easy as the McDonald's drivethru. You don't simply pull in, give orders and they are carried out. The terrorists out there know what our goal is in the Middle East and it has become their goal to stop us by any means possible. Their morale improves every time a big-name liberal steps up to a podium and pours out the "Bush lied, thousands died" garbage like a waterfall. Their morale improves every time a big-name liberal comes out and bashes the President and the war without giving any plans on how to fix things. (It's amazing, really. Instead of present a clear plan on what to do in Iraq, the majority of the garden variety, typically incorrect liberal world just complains about the state of things in Iraq.) These folks feed off of American weakness.

Yes, our troops are dying, the terrorists are being meanies and France is laughing at us (like we care about the latter).

Here's a news flash to the garden variety, typically incorrect liberals out there: people die in war. Sure, it is a horrible thing but you have to accept causalities in war. That is a simple fact. The goal in war is to win it with the least amount of causalities as possible.

Here's where the problem occurs in the mind of the garden variety, typically incorrect liberal: they seem to fail to understand that while war stinks and you try to win it with the least amount of deaths as possible, if a single life is lost in the cause, the war is not worth fighting and it is time to pack things up and go. This position couldn't be any more incorrect if it tried.

The "Cut and Run" strategy makes absolutely no sense. Never in the history of warfare has surrender equaled victory in the long run. If we were to back out of Iraq right now, the terrorists would claim a major victory in the war on Terrorism/Islamofascism and they would only strengthen. They would see weakness in the great US of A and would try to continue to push and push, hoping to help the broken window to shatter.

Remember when bin Laden cited the US backout of Somalia in 1993 by the Clinton administration (geniuses they were) as a sign of American weakness? It strengthened his hopes of staging attacks against America and those hopes became true on a large scale nearly a decade later. Do we want to see what type of evil is unleashed on this country as a result of surrendering to an enemy we will defeat if we are patient enough? I highly doubt it.

Photo Credit: http://www.corporatedump.com/images/stressred.gif