Dems Trying To Flex National Security Muscles
Posted by bulldogpundit
Ankle Biting Pundits
Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2006
UPDATE: This NYT article expounds a bit more on the "plan" (which I can't wait to see). When you read the article you will see that their idea on how to fight a "war on terror" is purely defensive. They've trotted out spectacular failures like Maddy Albright and Wesley Clark. It's nothing more than warmed-over Kerry ideas from 2004. They do throw a sop to their base by ensuring that the DNI can investigate torture and abuse allegations. But my favorite is a quote by Harry Reid who said:
<<< "Over the last century, Democrats have led America through two world wars, have stared down threats to our security at home and have defeated the ideals of Communism and Fascism. Today, Democrats are here to build on that record." >>>
Defeated communism? Democrats? Are you friggin kidding me? This is quickly going from a joke to a farce.
You all knew the kid in school. He was the little punk who likes to run his mouth about how tough he is, but everyone knew he was nothing more than a dog that barked but never bit. And every so often you'd get sick of hearing his voice and called him out, and when it was time to "bring it' instead of "sing it", he always found a way to avoid the confrontation - except the times when all avenues of retreat were closed off - then he got his ass beat to a pulp. Why was that? Because all he knew how to do was run his mouth and the actual fight exposed him for the chicken-sh*t you always knew he was.
The reason I'm reminded of that kid is because the Democrats are about to release Version 45.2 of their "national security plan" to try to convince us that we would be better off with them in charge, and as usual it's full of tough talk and broad statements signifying nothing:
<<< Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.
In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.
"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be." It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.
The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. >>>
I can't wait to read it. A few thing do strike me initially. First, if anyone thinks the Democrat party - whose base stands against the Patriot Act, who want us out of Iraq immediately, and is against the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program - is going to be better for our national security then they’re on crack. There's simply no other way to say it.
Another thing is the language they use. They want to "eliminate" Osama Bin Laden. Why don't they just say they want to "kill" him? I'm curious because their party chair Howard Dean said Osama Bin Laden deserved a fair trial.
Further, they still don't get it. They want to focus all the attention on "eliminating" Bin Laden, while turning over Iraq to al-Zarqawi where it become just like Afghanistan was pre 9/11. And I love the "no timetable" part when their leading voice on the issue - John Murtha - wants them out almost immediately.
Finally, notice how AP describes Bin Laden. He is a "mastermind". Not that he "masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks", but that he is a "mastermind".
What these Democrats need to learn is that you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. And when it comes to national security, chicken sh*t is all they have.
anklebitingpundits.com
nytimes.com
news.yahoo.com
anklebitingpundits.com |
