SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (19048)3/30/2006 12:10:34 PM
From: Sully-   of 35834
 
    I went to Democrats.org to look at the plan. Sadly, it’s 
not a “plan.” It’s a “wish list.”....
    ...Sadly this document suggests that when they were putting
this together, not one staffer sitting around the table
was willing to raise their hand and say, “Uh, Senator
Reid, Minority Leader Pelosi… this isn’t really a plan.
It’s just a list of goals.”

THE DEMOCRATS SPECIFIC-FREE PLAN ON NATIONAL SECURITY

TKS
jim geraghty reporting

The Democrats have addressed national security. Hurrah!

However, I’m not quite wowed by their effort today. For starters, today’s event featured Gen. Wesley Clark and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, two individuals whom I will always see as Mr. “Reenact Gallipoli with a land invasion of the Balkans,” and Madam "Toasting Kim Jong Il with champagne over a treaty they ignore.”

But I realize not everyone sees these figures the way I do. Moving on to the proposals:

<<< In the strategy, Democrats vowed to provide U.S. agents with the resources to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006.
On eliminating bin Laden… okay, what resources? What do our agents need right now that they don’t have? >>>


Why do I suspect bin Laden’s remaining at large has more to do with limitations on U.S. forces operating in Pakistan than with a lack of resources?

On Iraq, I’m not quite sure what the major difference is with the administration, which is also hoping for a redeployment and troop reduction in Iraq in 2006. Of course, the White House is saying that decision will depend on the circumstances on the ground; I guess the Democratic perspective is to reduce troops no matter what’s happening over there.

As a RedState contributor observed, if the Democrats were to win a majority, they would not take control of the House and Senate until January 2007. How exactly would they manage to bring about a “redeployment of U.S. forces in 2006”?

Moving, on the AP reviews their proposals:


<<< They promised to rebuild the military, lessen the United States' dependence on foreign oil and implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. Those are many of the same proposals Democrats have offered before. >>>


For all the complaints about media bias, that one sentence by the AP reporter must sting a bit.

I went to Democrats.org to look at the plan. Sadly, it’s not a “plan.” It’s a “wish list.”

<<< To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:


Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. >>>


Oooh! “Redoubling efforts!” I reel at the specifics!

“Finish the job in Afghanistan!”
Somebody get the Pentagon on line one, Reid and Pelosi have cracked the case!

“Eliminate Osama bin Laden and destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda!”
Well, thank goodness they came up with this original idea!

Sadly this document suggests that when they were putting this together, not one staffer sitting around the table was willing to raise their hand and say, “Uh, Senator Reid, Minority Leader Pelosi… this isn’t really a plan. It’s just a list of goals.”

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee notes that the plan "advocates shifting 140,000 American soldiers out of Iraq to attack a nuclear-armed nominal ally to capture a figurehead dialysis patient that Harry Reid already thinks is dead."

tks.nationalreview.com

washingtonpost.com

c17wife.redstate.com

a9.g.akamai.net

confederateyankee.mu.nu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext