In an ideal world, no one ever has to make a tough decision. But unfortunately in the real world, sometimes tough problems have to be faced. Politicians hate to deal with really tough problems because by definition, whatever proposed solution you offer is guaranteed to anger roughly half the voters.
When the problem is merely financial--like the approaching insolvency of Social Security and Medicare--the usual political response is simply to ignore the problem, knowing it won't actually hit until someone else is in office. But when the problem is 100,000 fanatics who've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to die to destroy us and our way of life, only an opportunist postpones hard decisions. A good leader steps up to the plate, makes the tough choices and puts up with the inevitable carping and second-guessing from critics.
Messrs. Kerry, Edwards, Jimmy Carter and most other Dems clearly believe that the problem of extremist-Muslim terror attacks on ordinary civilians can be solved by 'making nice'--by diplomacy, soothing talk, "understanding root causes", accepting that we bear much of the responsibility for their anger at us, and thinking in terms of "moral equivalence": 'They're just like us, and beheading someone to them is sort of like dropping someone off the "A-list" for party invitations.'
To many Americans, proposing "more talk" is a perfectly reasonable idea. It's particularly attractive to two classes of people: The first group is well-educated elitists--who recall that after WW2 the U.S. government both supported bad regimes and encouraged the overthrow of others in attempting to contain the spread of communism.
The "make nice" theory also appeals strongly to people who believe most of life's difficulties are due to a conspiracy against them by "the rich". Or more accurately, by *conservative* rich folks. A few wealthy people--Kerry, Edwards, all Hollywood stars, all network newspeople (except Fox, of course) aren't in on the plot. But anyone who's ever been involved with oil or defense, or who owns a business, is *definitely* part of the conspiracy.
The two groups just described probably account for 90 percent of Dem voters. In their view, anything Bush succeeds at in Iraq makes America *less* safe rather than more. Instead, the less America provokes Islamists, the better. And "provoking" them is doing anything they don't like.
The problem with this theory is that Islamic fanatics were blowing up U.S. property for, oh, 15 years or so *before* we invaded Iraq. And of course we hadn't invaded--hadn't even thought about doing so--when 19 of 'em flew two loaded jetliners into the World Trade Center.
But to the "make nice" Dems, facts don't count. Instead, what counts is that you *say* the right things, show that you *care* for the poor and oppressed of the world, and NEVER raise a hand in anger, no matter how lethally you've been attacked.
The scary thing is, something like 44% of U.S. voters actually believe this.
And sooner or later, they're gonna regain control of our government