This past Sunday, Cheney was interviewed on FOX News (surprise!) and had this to say:

We have these meetings with members of Congress, and they all agree we can't fail; the consequences of failure would be too great. But then they end up critical of what we're trying to do, advocating withdrawal or so-called redeployment of force, but they have absolutely nothing to offer in its place. I have yet to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side, with respect to an alternative.

David Brooks and Cheney are reading from the same talking points. It's the latest GOP mantra, the Dems have never offered an alternative option.

Well, what about measured withdrawal and/or redeployment of forces, two options Cheney actually mentioned? Just because Cheney may not agree with them doesn't disqualify them from being valid alternatives. And they don't equate necessarily to "losing."

Their so-called "stay the course" (and isn't a "surge" staying true to "stay the course"?) plan has amounted to four years of losing, and shows no signs of reversing, i.e. continued losing and many, many more extinguished American lives.

Cheney goes on to state:

If we were to follow their guidance — the comments, for example, that a lot of them made during the last campaign about withdrawing U.S. forces — we simply go back and revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from day one, that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit.

I thought bin Laden's strategy related more to that key video he released during the week prior to the 2004 election, thus helping Bush get re-elected over Kerry. Hmm, the strategy seems to be to keep Bush/Cheney in power, since they're all for the continued war and bloodshed -- which Osama uses as effective recruiting propaganda.

The fact is bin Laden doesn't want us to quit, i.e. exactly opposite Cheney's contention (surprise!).