Though the Democrats ran on a platform of "increased oversight," the agenda they selled to the American people, their true agenda now that they have attained power has been more clearly revealed. They want to quickly withdraw from Iraq, curl up into a tiny ball, stick their heads in the sand, and pretend there aren't people who wish to decapitate us out there.

This is especially true after the President's proposal. At one time or another, almost every leading Democrat called for an increase in the number of troops in Iraq. Now that Bush has caved, and authorized 21,500 more troops in active-duty, the Democrats are opposed to it (because Bush isn't). What exactly the now upset Democrats plan to do about it, besides bloviate, is beyond me, but they are trying.

California Representative (a misnomer - if this woman represents the people of California then I fear for the entire west coast) Lynn Woolsey, the same Lynn Woolsey who authored a resolution for total withdrawal of US forces two years ago, has said that "Ours is now the mainstream position."

I hate to break it to you Ms. Woolsey, but the day the MoveOn.Org opinion is the majority opinion of America is the day I move to Canada (not really). That liberals are so far removed from Public opinion that they believe their ridiculous, far-left policies are popular is both amusing, disgusting, and saddening. The Congressional "Out of Iraq" caucus, founded by another California "representative" Maxine Waters has over 80 members.

Bush is fighting back, thankfully. He is defending his proposal justly. I think the proposal has a lot going for it, and is likely to work if it is given a chance. Furthermore, it makes political sense for the Democrats to let Bush try his plan - if it doesn't work, they have more fodder for '08. The, give him enough rope and he'll hang himself strategy doesn't work with the Democrats anymore now that they are in power. Why? Because they realize that Bush's plan may SUCCEED, and that then it would be on THEM for not supporting the plan. They cannot allow this, and so they are going to push for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success," President Bush said in his weekly radio address. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

Bush is right. If the Democrats cannot come up with reasonable alternatives that will achieve victory in Iraq, then there is no reason to listen to them at all. The President has done his job. He has come up with a plan designed to achieve victory in this troublesome war. The Democrats have done nothing but whine and complain every step of the way. Perhaps Bush's ideas haven't worked, and there have obviously been mistakes. But at least Bush did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for most of the Democrats (now-Independent Joe Liberman being perhaps the sole exception).

In the last week, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate respectively, announced they will introduce resolutions condemning the President's plan, even though both of them have previously supported troop increases as early as late-December 06. The brilliant Senator Ted Kennedy introduced a bill that would require the president to seek Congressional approval for any troop increases (nevermind that this is a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, but the President the power to run the war once it has been declared).

On Friday, "Represenative" John Murtha announced that he would use his position as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee to try and block further funding for troop increases in Iraq. Yet this man is supposed to care about the military, and is supposed to be a friend of the troops. Not reinforcing soldiers on the battlefield in a time of war is a terrible military tactic. Bush is trying to fix it, and this supposed "friend" of the military opposes it.

"There definitely is a feeling of liberation," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. "The question now is not if, but how we get out of Iraq and when. The whole nature of the debate has changed."

I pray to God, that for the sake of our military, our country, our defense, our citizens, and the world, that Mr. Conyers is wrong. We cannot afford to lose this war, and if Democrats cut funding for the troops - effectively pulling the rug out from under the soldiers, not only will they be seen as anti-military elitists (which they are), but as people who do not care about America (also true).

If Democrats cut funding, then Bush will have no choice but to cave. A war cannot continue without funds. Yet should this happen, Bush should make sure that the blame clearly falls on Congress. He should also make it known when the resulting genocide takes place in Iraq, when Civil War breaks out and hundreds of thousands die, that it was the Democrats who allowed this to happen.

If we pull out, Bush's point will be illustrated. Iraq is not a civil war, because the United States is there preventing one. If we leave, there will be no restrictions on the terrorists, and they will wage an all-out civil war for control of the country. This will result in the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions) of people, most of them innocents.

We need to implement Bush's plan, and we need to implement it immediately, because I fear we are running out of time. The Democrats are becoming increasingly hostile to the President, openly opposing him at every turn. They are already threatening to cut funding for the war, as a Democratic Congress did once before to another Republican President, the late Gerald Ford. Nothing has changed, and the resulting Cambodian genocide will be repeated in Iraq should we pull out now. That the Democrats don't understand this is scary, and disturbing.

We must win and we must do so now. The opportunity cannot be lost or it will not appear again for a very, very long time. Win and do it now. We CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE.