Laura Ingraham at the Corner is right. We need a president who has a bit of a mean side.
I kind of want a mean, tough S.O.B at this point — who can cut the legs out from underneath the Dems and the dinosaur media who are invested in America’s defeat. Someone who seems pleasant on the surface but who knows how to send in the daisy-cutters when al Qaeda or Taliban thugs are sleeping.
She made that point in reference to Huckabee, who she says is “just such a nice, earnest, down-to-earth man”.
I would say that Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in his body, either.
Giuliani, on the other hand….well, as we all know he can be a little acrid at times. (Scroll down to video). I consider that plus at this point, too.
Fred Thompson also seems like someone who would be more than happy to cut the legs out from under the liberal Dems, and media.
And oh, how they so richly deserve it.
After almost seven years of Bush’s “new tone”, I’m ready for a fighter. And by that I mean, someone who is willing to fight the war of words here at home in a tougher, and more effective manner.
Nice Deb 
I’m not so hasty to blame the Democrats for “defeat”. Sure, they played this war as a political tool against Bush for all it’s worth. However, I believe we did achieve our military objectives in that a military is supposed to be able to spank down the enemy, which ours did, handily. The rest of the situation in Iraq really relies on the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish peoples coming together and not trying to kill each other. Unfortunately, no amount of military force can create these conditions as military might cannot change hearts and minds, especially those minds which have been ingrained by a culture a thousand years old. I do hope we can achieve a political victory in Iraq but eventually we will have to call our troops home. All we can do is attempt to create the conditions for a prosperous and peaceful Iraq. The big question is, in my mind, if the surge fails, do we try again? Or do we come home and let them be on their own? As our financial problems mount here at home, it may be unfeasible to keep an elevated troop presence there in the future. We can always say, one more try, or we have a new strategy. But there is no guarantee that the next strategy will work, or the next 10 strategies. If the Iraqi people are not in it, if they are not into coming together to form a coalition, that the mistrust between them is too great, then we’ll have to leave them to sort things out. It’s a terrible option in that a greater civil war may break out, I know, but it may be the only practical one. Or, perhaps, under increasing pressure from our decreased presence, they may find a solution and work out a peaceful Iraq. I just don’t think the Democrats are so responsible for a “defeat” if it ever happens because ultimately, we have already won militarily, but perhaps we’ll never get the people to work together, an intractible problem.
LikeLike
I think there are two major aspects of our war against our enemies that our current politicians have refused to honor. Those are: branding the enemy, and pro-West propaganda.
I want someone who will say upfront who are enemies are, and who will tell all of us why we are so great and they are bad. All this PC claptrap and multiculti gobbledy-gook are weakening our resolve and spirit.
And this applies not only to Islamist militants but also to the Russians and Chinese. It’s time to make Cold War II a little more noisy.
Romney seems to get along well with Coulter. The good thing about Coulter is that she doesn’t let anything hinder her. If Romney becomes like that, his candidacy becomes more attractive. But until then, it seems that Fred Thompson will be our hero.
We need a new Reagan, a new sherrif, a new hero.
LikeLike
I don’t want to start any debates, but if we have yet to fully withdraw from Europe and Japan, what makes anyone think we will fully withdraw from Iraq?
We will never fully withdraw from Iraq. One reason, among others, is that the liberation of Iraq was accomplished to institute two goals: an American-friendly regime in Iraq, and an American military presence in Iraq. Both are vital to secure American interests in the region (particularly to curb Islamist terrorism and to curb the influence of Russia and China and Iran) and to expand, if not protect, our sphere of influence in that area of the world.
The sooner the American people and politicians accept and embrace the fact that we will always have a military presence in Iraq, the better for us in many respects and regards.
It is unfortunate that as hegemon we need to be militarily present in order to establish and then keep the peace, but, really, it will be for the good of everyone, American and non-American. This is one thing that makes us different from practically every hegemon in the history of the world: securing our interests, in the end, is beneficial for all peoples of the world, not just good for us.
LikeLike