As a continuation of yesterday's rant, there's one more thing I failed to mention. Did you know that the Democrats in Congress are demanding that the phrase "global war on terror" be removed from future legislation in favor of more specific terms, such as "the war in Iraq" or "the conflict in the Horn of Africa"? The memo states that "global war on terror," or GWOT, is a colloquialism that is no longer acceptable, as well as any mention of a "long war."

I used to shy away from saying that the Democrats actually want to lose the war. (Keep in mind, I'm talking about elected, liberal Democrats when I use the general term. I know that there are many Americans who call themselves Democrats who do not agree with what's going on in Washington. This is why I'm imploring you who fit in this category to seriously think through next year's vote!) I can no longer hold to my optimism in this area. I think they actually do want to lose the war.

How can it be interpreted any other way? They want to cut funding. They want to set a deadline for getting our troops out of Iraq. Is there any other message for the terrorists to read into "we'll be leaving next March" than "let's hang on until March and then we can do whatever we want?" The entire idea is baffling to me if you have any intentions of actually winning the war.

But right now they are trying to deny the need for a war in the first place. They want to go back to the delusional mentality most of us were under before 9/11, where there aren't groups of people daily seeking to find ways to harm this country as much as they possibly can, who are seeking weapons of mass destruction and have absolutely no moral compass to keep them from pulling the proverbial trigger when it comes time. In fact, they follow a religion that they believe teaches them that this is the most honorable thing they can do for their god. There is no reasoning with people like this.

I would have laughed out loud at Rosie O'Donnell's comments last week if I hadn't been screaming at her through the television. On The View, she said, "They're terrorists. They have two choices, faith or fear. Faith or fear. That's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks differently than you and try to convert them to your way of thinking…Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."

Rosie, do you think that if given the chance these people wouldn't cut off your head or blow you up because you don't fear them? I would just feel sorry for you if I wasn't afraid of how many people out there agree with your mind-numbing ignorance. It's pathetic. What a slap in the face to your fellow New Yorkers.

I know that there are millions of Americans out there who are also angry. They are angry at George Bush because they think this whole thing is his fault. They blame the war on terrorism (oops, it just slipped out) on our President rather than the actual terrorists. It is so screwed up. On Tuesday, there was a story from Reuter's that seemed to suggest that because President Bush has been so successful at protecting our country from attack, we are actually more vulnerable to attack in the future. Where is the logic??

I believe we are extremely vulnerable to attack in the future. But I believe the chances of us being attacked will go up immeasurably if we follow the course the Democrats are prescribing and give up. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? The ONLY reason that America has ever lost a war is because Congress and the media did exactly the same thing back then that they are doing now. And they have no shame. They are proud of what they did back then. And they are smug and arrogant now. It's almost more than I can stand.