Quote-a-palooza
"The Democrats deliberately distort their intentions in the current debate on the Iraq War. They say their withdrawal timetable will 'end the war' - but it's ludicrous to suggest that removal of U.S. troops will suddenly stop the fighting. Concerning so-called insurgents, everyone agrees they are ruthless, barbaric killers. So what will they do when Americans leave? Will bloodthirsty bad-guys suddenly turn into pacifists- or decide to retire from their murderous ways? Will they abandon sectarian hatreds and suddenly embrace their Iraqi enemies? General Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, says American withdrawal would lead to an 'increase in sectarian violence... It can get much, much worse.' Islamo-Nazis in Iraq would feel powerfully encouraged not mollified, by removal of the one force strong enough to contain them: the U.S. military. Democratic surrender timetables won't 'end the war' - they'll only make it longer and more bloody, necessitating the ultimate return of American forces at an even higher cost." - Michael Medved
"The American public is not tired of the war; they are tired of believing that they are losing. They are tired of the daily drumbeat of pessimism and defeat promoted daily by our media and by some in our Congress. They don't understand that building a democracy is a slow process that takes years, that victory in Iraq will be more like the fall of communism than like VE day in 1945. Like it or not, it is incumbent upon us in the military to correct this misrepresentation of our efforts. We have a duty to convince the American public why we must stay and finish the mission. Should we have to? Did we sign up to do that? The answers are no and yes, respectively. No we shouldn't have to ask to be allowed to win a war, but yes we signed up to complete a mission. No whining allowed... It is not enough that we are making progress here in Iraq. We must make progress at home as well to ensure we are given the funds, support and time needed to finish the job. There is no doubt that we can create a stable democracy in Iraq- if we have courage enough to do so." - Lt. Jason Nichols, founder of AppealForCourage.org
"Biblical teaching is clear: God intends government to use law to enforce morality. Informed Christian people are essential to that process because the concept of justice that grounds good government can be twisted by evil men in power. If the Church doesn't stand in the gap giving substance to the words 'good' and 'evil,' then nothing prevents leadership from reversing the definitions, praising evil and punishing good. Tragically, this is already happening... Little by little, though, more things have been included under the broad rubric of 'politics.' One by one the secularists co-opted the moral issues, called them political, and told us to get off of the playing field... Notice the outcome. When Christians follow a policy of 'no politics,' it's easy to silence the moral voice of the Church. Simply label any issue 'political' and followers of Christ wave the white flag. This policy is tantamount to surrender... The myth of political passivity unwittingly makes a Christian virtue out of the vice of negligence. When we ignore our obligation to morally instruct the nation merely because someone labels it 'politics,' then it won't be long before the country teems with injustice as every man simply does 'what is right in his own eyes'." - Gregory Koukl
"Politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive." - Ronald Reagan
"For the sake of argument, let's say former CIA Director George Tenet is right in his book and that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed too hard with questionable or inaccurate intelligence because of a predisposition to go to war in Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. So what? We can't go back and fix the mistakes of the past. Only two choices are available: victory or defeat. Let us assume the Democratic left is right and we should pull U.S. forces out as early as Oct. 1, or perhaps a few months later, but certainly before the next president takes office, because the Bush administration's policy in Iraq has completely failed and, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 'the war is lost.' What next? Does the United States not suffer a loss of credibility in the world's eyes for again failing to finish a job it started? Do the millions who voted for the first elected government in Iraq conclude they risked their lives for nothing? What would be the consequences of pulling out before Iraq is stabilized sufficiently to stand on its own? And, most importantly, what would a U.S. retreat do to the confidence of the enemy that wishes to dominate the world by force?" - Cal Thomas