One of the reasons that I've been so patient with President Bush and his handling of the war on terrorism is because he is tackling a problem his predecessors have ignored for a quarter-century.

The reason there are no "easy" answers or fixes to the problems in the Middle East is in large part because we've allowed the problem of Islamic jihadism to go unchecked for far too long.

We watched as Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islamists to seize power in Iran; we watched al-Qaida set up shop in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan; we watched Lebanon fall to Islamic militants.

We've even pressured Israel to succumb to the demands of Palestinian groups that have repeatedly teamed up with Islamic terrorist groups in their war against the West.

(Column continues below)

Our nation will soon have to decide whether to entrust the "war on terrorism" – now a forbidden phrase in liberal quarters in Britain – to either one of the more responsible Republican candidates who will carry on the crusade that Bush launched in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to the Democrats and their plans for "phased withdrawal" from the frontlines of the war on terror.

Trusting the war effort to one of the current Democrat candidates would be a dumb and dangerous prospect.

Rambo in Birkenstocks

Barack Obama is a walking contradiction when it comes to the war against Islamic terrorists. Obama is positioning himself to be Rambo in a tie-dyed T-shirt and Birkenstocks. He's trying to placate the anti-war and anti-military leftists in the Democratic Party base, while also trying to sound tough enough to attract the support of more moderate voters.

Obama calls himself a "hawk" in the war on terrorism who would have picked up weapons himself to fight off the terrorists who committed the 9-11 attacks.

Oh really?

I'm a hawk when it comes to defeating terrorism; I was strongly supportive of Afghanistan; I would have picked up arms myself to prevent 9-11 again. – Barack Obama on "Charlie Rose" show, Nov. 24, 2004

Sorry, but Barack Obama is a bald-faced liar.

You see, Obama is a rabid gun-grabber who wouldn't even have been allowed to carry a weapon to fire at the 9-11 terrorists if he had his way. He received an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association, and it's not hard to understand why.

Last year, he told a crowd that he "believe(s) in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. …"

I guess since Barack doesn't support the right of gun ownership in inner cities, he was going to pick up arms and fight the 9-11 terrorists in the countryside.

She's no Margaret Thatcher

Earlier this year, the Sunday Times of London reported, "Hillary Clinton is to be presented as America's Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House."

Clinton aide Terry McAulliffe defended the idea of Hillary Clinton as the new Margaret Thatcher by noting: "Their policies are totally different, but they are both perceived as very tough. She is strong on foreign policy. People have got to know you are going to keep them safe."

In October 2002, Hillary Clinton demonstrated that strength when she spoke ardently about the need to take on Saddam Hussein's regime:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

With public support for the war effort still respectably high, Clinton remained an advocate for the mission in Iraq in April 2004. Clinton appeared on "Larry King Live" to say that she didn't regret her vote supporting President Bush's decisions to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

But now that support for the mission in Iraq has fallen, Clinton's done a complete reversal, announcing in an e-mail to supporters:

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed. …"

Sorry, but Margaret Thatcher was a woman of convictions who fought for what she believed in, no matter how popular or unpopular her stance on an issue may have been.

During the Cold War, Thatcher remained steadfast in the fight against communism even in the face of mass protests from British leftists who felt that her policies would provoke a nuclear war.

Hillary Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher; she doesn't even do a good job at playing dress up as Margaret Thatcher.

The supporting cast

And what about the other Democrat candidates for president? Might one of them be able to navigate the treacherous route to victory over Islamic jihadists in the Middle East?

Not hardly.

There's John Edwards, whose campaign is based on the notion that Obama and Hillary have been too pro-war. Edwards' approach seems to be that we should flirt with the terrorists by impressing them with our $400 fluffy hairdos.

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden doesn't offer much hope, either. Caught plagiarizing a speech by a British politician during his run for president in 1988, it's more likely that Biden would deal with the terrorists by ripping off the words of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore.

The Democrat candidates for president aren't dumb. They are deliberately embracing policies of appeasement and surrender to placate the liberal activists who could be crucial in the 2008 elections.

But as a nation we can't afford to be so dumb as to entrust our national security to these dangerously na?ve, disingenuous and wishy-washy Democrats.