My teacher posted a rather... interesting liberally loaded quote on the board last year. One which I want to confront.

“In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war.” ~ U.S. Senator Robert La Follette Sr.

Incorrect.

I have to say that from what I have seen in American history, these people are the first to scrutinize the timing of war. It is either too early or too late.

I think a good example is when " Hillary Clinton spoke the most irritation 9 words in all of politics, "if we had known then what we knew now", " (Medved).

The point is we certainly did not know then what we know now.

"Peace through strength," a concept not easily grasped by many American politicians. Peace through strength can almost directly be translated into preparation for war. Yet when the armed forces take a protective stance liberals overlook the essence of human nature and insist on the preparation for peace.

Hypothetically speaking, when a world leader declares his hatred for America or say… promises total domination of our country, it would be in our best interest to prepare for defensive measures. But I would bet you that the minute our fighter jets abort the first nuclear weapons in mid air, the liberals will be the first to blame the new state of war on the hawks of the American government. And the minute a nuclear bomb lands on American soil they will be the first to complain that the readiness of the American armed forces is not up to par.

What if American forces had taken up the offensive and prevented 9/11? If we had known then what we know now we surely would have. But that is exactly the point. We did not know, and now all I hear is how the American forces failed to save the 3000-some lives of the world trade centers.

You cannot have it both ways.

President Bush stated it perfectly. "Success in this war is often measured by the things that have not happened."