By Definition... Doesn't Courage Involve Taking Risk ???

[WillyT]

The Democrats have already provided funding for our troops and the President rejected it.

I don't give a crap whether or not GW likes the timelines and benchmarks.

Resubmit the original offer, let him veto it again, tell him that the money is there with the same provisos whenever he wants it, and let him go pound salt.

If the Democratic party and its allies cannot mount a PR offensive explaining to voters that we are supporting out troops WHILE bringing the war to an end, AND bringing those troops home, then how do they expect to EVER be seen as courageous national leaders of the loyal opposition party???

I think the country is yearning for this, yet they are STILL acting like whipped dogs.

And as a citizen, I'm not all that stirred to their cause right now.

Lead the fucking charge Democrats, and we will follow.

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

1. Not always

Facing your fears (which may not have any basis in fact so there is no risk) often requires a great deal of courage.

[WillyT]

2. Ok... So We Are Either Courageous, Or Afraid...

Which one would YOU vote for?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

5. Oh sheesh. Fine: perceived risk.

[Demeter]

3. Not Flinching Counts As Courage, Too

Haven't seen much of that around DC, either, except among the psychopathic, who are incapable of fear by definition.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Yup.