Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/29/2006 12:17:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Democrats' Meaningless Promises Posted by Matt Blogs for Bush Ahh, I love it... Democrats, who have fought Bush virtually every step of the way on the war on terror, think their "promise" to "eliminate" bin Laden is supposed to convince people they have a clue how lead the war on terror? Let's see, they oppose the Patriot Act, support cuts in military and intelligence spending... Need I go on? Perhaps the most ridiculous is the fact they are considering censuring (or impeaching) the President for wiretapping terrorists. They think that they can "take back the security issue" by making promises they can't guarantee and their record proves they have no ability to accomplish. "This is more of the same from the party that opposes this president's effort to keep our country safe," said Tracey Schmitt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman. "The bottom line is while this president campaigns against the terrorists, Democrats remain focused on campaigning against this president." Indded The Democrats don't want to eliminate Osama bin Laden. They want to eliminate George W. Bush. That's all these phony promises are about. blogsforbush.com news.yahoo.com gopbloggers.org

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/29/2006 12:26:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Once again, the Democrats will run on slogans instead of real strategy and tactics. Democrats Finally Agree On National-Security Message: Invade Pakistan By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters The Democrats plan to announce their new national-security strategy for the 2006 election tomorrow, but Liz Sidoti at the AP reports that advance word has already leaked on the broad strokes. The message? Get tough on Osama while retreating in the face of his friends: <<< 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. >>> Let's get this straight. The Democrats want to retreat against al-Qaeda forces assembled in Iraq in order to invade Pakistan, which is where Osama is most likely spending his time. They want to run away from the operational forces of AQ in a fashion that will remind all of them of Somalia, Beirut, and Teheran -- proving Osama right about American tenacity. Going after Osama is a terrific goal, but unless they have a better plan than to flood Pakistan with special-forces teams and spies that Pervez Musharraf will consider an act of war, then this policy is doomed to failure. Once again, the Democrats will run on slogans instead of real strategy and tactics. They shrewdly selected Osama as a focal point, reminding the country that after over four years, the Bush administration hasn't captured the terrorist leader. Without a doubt, that has to rankle Americans; it rankles me. However, the Bush administration has isolated the AQ leadership and forced it back into Pakistan, as well as killed off or captured most of the operational leadership in the organization. We removed Saddam Hussein and transformed the geography of Southwest Asia, cutting off the terrorist lines of communication across the Middle East. The US forced the Islamofascists to engage our military on their turf instead of our civilians on ours. What do the Democrats propose in its place? Disengagement from the only place where we can bring our military force to bear on Islamofascist terrorists, and another ignominious retreat just as we have to show strength in the region to back down the Iranian mullahcracy. The Democrats want to implement the Murtha plan, a strategy that will pull all our forces back to Kuwait, just in case they're needed to support the Iraqi security forces we will be abandoning to the terrorists we swore to fight. And when they are needed, what do we have to do? Redeploy in force across what will now be even more hostile territory after stripping ourselves of all the intelligence and recon we have while we're in place now. Slogans and Osama-baiting may well work for the Democrats, but in the end we will still wind up fighting the same people we fight now. Instead of fighting them in Samarra and Tal Afar, we will fight them in San Francisco and Washington, DC. We may well fight them in Pakistan, as well as the nuclear-armed Pakistanis, if we openly invade their territory to chase Osama bin Laden. That's not a plan for victory; it's an incoherent fantasy. captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/29/2006 2:24:40 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Good Counterpunch from Boehner By Hugh Hewitt Majority Leader Boehner gets it exactly right. He should be on the cable nets tonigth saying exactly the same thing (provided he doesn't bump me from H&C): <<< WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today on the "security" agenda offered by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV): "The Democrats' years of negligence in addressing the real safety and security needs of the American people provide a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats on security issues. "While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. "While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens, and secure our communities. "While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws, and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society. "The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed the Patriot Act, opposed REAL ID legislation, and opposed efforts to strengthen and secure our borders. And they remain unable and unwilling to articulate a cohesive strategy for supporting our troops and winning the War on Terror. "When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else: no. A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security." >>> hughhewitt.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 12:10:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to 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

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 12:26:40 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN - ER, "PLAN" ON NORTH KOREA TKS jim geraghty reporting A friendly left-of-center reader forwarded the more detailed version of the Democrats' plans on national security. The good news is, this one is longer and more specific, 123 pages. The bad news is that while the headlines are bold, the proposals are vague, mild, and not terribly different from the current policies. (And let me say, if the Democrats had/have a better idea, I'll be out cheering for it. I don't want to thumb my nose at a good idea from somebody who comes from a political party I generally disagree with.) Take, for example, the section on North Korea. It's easy to argue that the Bush administration's efforts on this front haven't generated the results we want. But coming up with something better is more difficult. And some proposals completely contradict other lines of criticism of this president, such as: <<< "President Bush must put an end to the debate within his administration between those who favor diplomacy and those who favor pressure/regime change." (page 58) >>> Aren't we always hearing that Bush stifles dissent, he's surrounded by yes men, he never encourages debate or differing views? Come on. It's good to have a hard-liner like our UN ambassador and a kindler, gentler type like our folks at State. Provides options for good cop and bad cop. I do kind of like this section: <<< Diplomacy or pressure/regime change is not a choice; it is a sequence; o The U.S. should devise a Plan A for diplomatic success to employ first, and then a contingent Plan B for pressure to use if diplomacy fails; o Plan B serves two purposes: to aid Plan A by showing North Korea the penalty for failing to end its nuclear program; and to create a realistic prospect of containing and ultimately eliminating the nuclear threat from North Korea. >>> Of course, this more or less commits the Democratic Party to regime change if the talks with NK fail. I'm sure you're familiar with the bizarre style of North Korean negotiations - one moment they're insisting they want to talk, the next they're threatening a preemptive strike. Oddly, the Democratic "Plan A" requires the U.S. to "pledge not to attack North Korea" and "renounce efforts to force a regime change." Then they have a much tougher "Plan B." Why wouldn't the North Koreans sign an agreement in which we pledge not to attack, break their word the way they did with the previous deals, and then when we object, wave our pledge to not attack in our faces and scream on the world stage that we're breaking a specific promise? Anyway, Plan B on North Korea also includes: <<< Political pressure to deprive the North Korean government of international legitimacy and to undermine it within its borders; Economic pressure via sanctions and embargo, assisted by as many nations as the United States can enlist >>> Well, North Korea's already a pariah state, has little signficant international trade, shuts out the outside world, and is willing to starve its people. I'm not sure there's much more political and economic pressure to apply. I'm more positive on the rest: <<< aggressive prosecution of the wide range of illicit activities sponsored by the North Korean government; o Military pressure to include the threat of strikes on North Korean WMD production, testing, and deployment facilities; o Robust steps to enhance deterrence of attack by North Korea upon any other nation. >>> I notice the plan says "the threat of strikes," but not anything about actual strikes. Rattle the saber, but never use it? Really, if there was something in here that I thought would seriously improve the situation on the Korean peninsula, I'd be singing its praises. But it sounds like this plan would have us pledge not to attack and foresake regime change, try to increase political and economic pressure that's pretty much maxed out, offer a deal that the Norks would probably balk on, insist upon verification methods they would almost certainly reject, and then take military action after we signed a high-profile treaty promising we would no longer consider it. tks.nationalreview.com democrats.senate.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 12:35:24 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL ON IRAN THAT SEEMS A MITE OPTIMISTIC TKS jim geraghty reporting Moving on to the Democrats' plan on Iran, I pulled an optic muscle from rolling my eyes so hard at this: <<< U.S. subcontracted the problem to the EU3 (France, UK and Germany) but has provided only lukewarm support to them. (Page 60) >>> This from the party of multilateralism, the party of the "global test", the party that's all about "strengthening alliances." You can't argue that we should trust our allies and let them do more, and the once that policy is enacted, turn around and claim that we're "subcontracting." Here's the deal in full, some parts I actually like: <<< A five-year global moratorium on all new enrichment and reprocessing, as called for by Mohammed ElBaradei, is the key. o Will require international cooperation in assembling both a bundle of carrots and an arsenal of sticks. o U.S., the EU3, Russia, and the IAEA need to present Iran with a bargain, packaged as an offer Iran cannot refuse. o It would offer cover for Iran to comply with an international obligation without explicitly yielding to American or EU3 demands. * The doable deal: o EU3 delivery of important economic benefits under the terms of an agreement. Iran is eagerly seeking trade and investment. o No U.S. objection to the supply of spare parts for U.S.-origin aircraft and negotiations with Iran about its entrance into the WTO. o Credible assurances by the U.S. not to attack Iran to change its regime by force – if Iran ceases all work on its reprocessing and enrichment facilities that could support a nuclear weapons program. o Slow-rolling of fuel delivery by Russia until Iran agrees to comply with the five-year moratorium. o A combined Russian-EU guarantee to give Iran the opportunity to buy additional civilian nuclear reactors. o A promise by Russia to provide an internationally-guaranteed supply of fuel for these reactors and removal of spent fuel at bargain prices. * Carrots are not enough: o Iran should be concerned that it has no realistic possibility of making its enrichment and reprocessing facilities operational. o Accordingly, Iran should understand the existential threat of a military response under some conditions. >>> *I salute the Godfather fan in Democratic circles for the phrase "an offer they can't refuse."* But there are a few problems. As the document acknowledges earlier:** <<< Iran’s devious behavior indicates that it is racing to join the nuclear weapons club… Iran concealed significant enrichment activities for almost two decades although it claims only to want to assure its fuel supply for seven planned civilian nuclear reactors to be built by 2020... Iran has shamelessly lied about many aspects of its program until confronted with solid evidence to the contrary. >>> Any deal comes down to enforcement and verification. My fear is that the Iranians will sign agreements they have no intention of honoring. I also fear that the Europeans, desperate to avoid a conflict, will sign on to a deal without sufficient verification for the sake of getting a deal. Two other points: remember who we’re going to be dealing with, Iranian President Mahmoud “I’m surrounded by a mystical green aura, world leaders magically don’t blink for hours at a time when I’m speaking, and the Twelfth Imam/Mahdi is coming and I have to prepare the way for him” Ahmedinjad. What appears to be a deal any rational man would accept to us may not be all that appetizing to him. Secondly, I don’t think it’s irrational or stubborn that “the U.S. does not want to be seen as bargaining with Iran,” as the document states in a vaguely disapproving tone. These people took over our embassy, including, allegedly, the current President. That is an act of war. You do not recognize and you do not bargain with a regime that does that. tks.nationalreview.com democrats.senate.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 12:42:40 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL SECURITY PLAN, PART IV TKS jim geraghty reporting Deep in the section of the Democratic National Security plan about securing Russia's nuclear arsenal (page 62), I found this nugget: <<< The top of our agenda must be securing Russian cooperation in preventing terrorists from acquiring nukes. Other concerns, such as Russia’s backsliding on democracy, must be given lesser priority. >>> Gutsy call. I was reminded of a comment from a forthcoming book: A strategist close to the Bush White House observes that the opposition party has devolved in two areas: “If you look back at the history of the Democratic Party, there was a time when they were both strong on defense and strong on idealism. If you read the speeches of Kennedy and Roosevelt, you sense the themes of idealism and the need for a strong military. Then in late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, they became weak on defense, but still strong on idealism. Their critique against the Republican party was that that it wasn’t standing up for American ideals. They focused on the corruption of South Vietnamese, on the need for sanctions on South Africa, on death squads on Central America. They made an idealistic case, even if they weren’t willing to use military force. Today the Democrats are weak on defense and weak on idealism. It is clear in terms of Iraq that they take no joy in the liberation of 25 million people from one of the most malevolent regimes in modern times. President Bush has seized the mantle of idealism that they have left, talking about the inherent dignity of man, human rights, and the rights of women.” Somewhere, Henry Kissinger is chuckling. I wonder if he would feel more at home with the Democrats right now. UPDATE: This section also has proposals that sound like they came out of a Dilbert comic strip mocking empty business blather talk. <<< Move from assistance to partnership. o Accelerate and strengthen U.S.–Russian cooperation. o Build Russian commitment to sustain high levels of security once international assistance ends. o Agree on what levels of security are needed and what standards should be met. o Decide on specific deadlines for when all loose Russian nuclear weapons and materials will be contained and secured. o Resolve remaining access and liability issues. o Consolidate nuclear stockpiles. o Develop nuclear “security culture.” o Exchange “best practices” for securing nukes. o Work together on nuclear security in the rest of the world to ensure that every weapon and every kilogram of material worldwide is secured and accounted for. o Improve Nunn–Lugar. o Streamline to remove bureaucratic obstacles. o Establish who is in charge. >>> I want to play some version of the Dilbert Pointy Haired Boss Buzzword Bingo: synergy, leadership, leverage, unified messaging, competency, collaboration, empowerment, quality, paradigm, team-enhancing, outside the box, radar screen, culture-shift... tks.nationalreview.com democrats.senate.gov amazon.com en.wikipedia.org

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 12:47:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL SECURITY PLAN, PART V TKS jim geraghty reporting One of the key parts of the Democrats' plan is in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. In general, this is a noble goal. (Although imagine if, tomorrow the U.S. found a source of domestic oil in Texas that meant we never needed another drop from Saudi Arabia; Would the energy-independence crowd say to the House of Saud, "To hell with you, we don't need you anymore, you're on your own"? Because really, as much as the House of Saud is despicable (and they are), there are worse options out there. An Arabian peninsula dominated by the corrupt, double-dealing Saudis may be better than one dominated by Osama bin Laden or a like-minded snake.) Anyway - discussing energy policy in the national security context allows the Democrats to include calls for more funding for a slew of their longtime favorite programs, and to now say that the usual domestic spending is now part of a plan to protect the country. Among the highlights: <<< Creating a tire fuel efficiency program. Proper inflation of tires and replacing old tires with fuel-efficient tires could save 470,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Democrats propose creating a national tire fuel efficiency program. [S. 1882] ... Investigating post-hurricane price gouging. Democrats passed a provision requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate nationwide gas price spikes in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for evidence of price gouging and its effects on the U.S. economy. [S. Amdt. 1703] Democrats fought to impose tough criminal penalties on price gouging companies. But Republicans voted against new criminal penalties of up to $100 million on price gouging energy corporations. [2005 House Vote #500, H.R. 3402, 9/28/05. Motion rejected 195-226: Republicans 0-226; Democrats 194-0) Senator Mikulski and 31 Democratic Senators sent a letter to the President on October 7, 2005 urging him to bring the oil companies’ CEOs to the White House and demand that they lower their prices. Democrats propose to provide relief to families paying skyrocketing energy costs by expanding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and provide relief to small businesses and farmers with a tax credit and grants. These would be paid for by repealing at least $8 billion in unnecessary subsidies in the new energy law for oil and gas companies, which oil companies say they do not even need, and through fines from price-gouging companies. [H.R. 4479] Aiding low-income families with high energy costs. Democrats support full funding of $5.1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to account for the dramatic increases in cost of heating. LIHEAP budget requests have decreased since 2001 despite 78 percent increases in expenditures on heating fuels. [S. Amdt. 2033, S. Amdt. 2077, S. Amdt. 2194, and S. Amdt. 3074] Weatherization assistance. Weatherizing homes that use home heating oil could save consumers 18 percent of their heating costs and save 80,000 barrels of oil per day. Democrats support increased funding of the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps American consumers weatherize their homes, lowering energy consumption and costs. [S. Amdt. 3039] >>> Only in the minds of Democrat leaders does a national security plan include a federal "tire fuel efficiency program." tks.nationalreview.com democrats.senate.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 1:02:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Democratic Foreign Policy By (Jon Henke) The QandO Blog The Democratic Party has released a foreign policy prospectus — "The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World" [pdf] — detailing their plan for a US Foreign policy. After a quick read, it appears to contain some good ideas, some wheel-spinning programs, some wishful thinking and a lot of platitudes. Basically, it’s just your average politicians press release: Good Intentions x Money + Hope = Success! However, in a story on the press conference announcement, the Washington Post offers us a fascinating insight into the careful, thoughtful (and reality-based!) deliberative process through which the Democratic Party creates a foreign policy... <<< Democrats have polled extensively on national security, testing various possible messages for the fall, and found that the more emphasis put on securing the homeland, the more voters respond. According to one poll taken for the Democratic National Committee, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed responded positively to such a message, rather than a message that emphasized taking the fight to the terrorists and staying the course in Iraq. >>> MESSAGE: Here’s the Democratic Foreign Policy — our vision for the future of America. If you don’t like it, we’ve got others! qando.net a9.g.akamai.net ai.com/8082/pdfs/20060329_realsecurity.pdf washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/30/2006 1:27:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi, Reid say they're "smart" and "strong." If so, why do they need to tell us? BY JAMES TARANTO Best of the Web Today Wednesday, March 29, 2006 You Probably Think This Item Is About You Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid "are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security," reports the Associated Press from Washington: <<< "We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer," . . . Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday. . . . Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy--"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." >>> But according to the AP, there isn't much substance behind these boasts: <<< The Democratic statement lacks specific details of a plan to capture [Osama] bin Laden, the al-Qaida chief who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Democrats suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. Democrats also do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn. They say: "We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces." >>> It's hard to argue with these positions: Everyone would like to see Osama bin Laden captured and the U.S. military presence in Iraq reduced, but because these goals depend on as-yet-unknown contingencies, no one can responsibly promise to achieve them by a date certain. The Democratic position on these matters is essentially indistinguishable from the Republican one. What's telling about the Reid and Pelosi statements, though, is their sheer vanity. They boast about being "tough," "smart" and "strong." When someone tells you how tough, smart and strong he is, do you think, (1) Wow, he's really tough, smart and strong! or (2) If he's so tough, smart and strong, why does he have to keep telling me? Generally speaking, people who brag about their fine qualities come across as somewhat pathetic. The exception is when the boast is obviously true. When Muhammad Ali said "I am the greatest," it was charming because it was true. By contrast, if President Bush started going around telling everyone how smart he was, it would be embarrassing. Smart he may be, but he doesn't have bragging rights on this particular point. (He might be able to get away with boasting of his toughness, though.) By bragging about how smart and strong they are, Reid and Pelosi only underscore that their actions show them to be insipid and weak. Their plan for "national security" looks more like an expression of personal insecurity. opinionjournal.com breitbart.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	3/31/2006 8:21:14 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Most remarkably, the document reveals just how thoroughly partisan the Democratic leadership has become -- not that we needed further proof. The tipoff is in their plan's virtual indistinguishability from the president's goals. Since their plan ratifies most of the president's aims in the war on terror, they have just forfeited all their lame excuses for having opposed him so relentlessly on war issues. Real security mirage by David Limbaugh Townhall.com Mar 31, 2006 After the 2004 election liberals bombarded us with endless screeds sneering at how stupid, gullible and reality-challenged Red-staters were to have voted for President Bush. But in ploy after partisan ploy ever since, the Democratic leadership has made it painfully obvious they regard their own constituencies with similar contempt. Their latest antic, the unveiling of their "Real Security" plan is so insultingly juvenile it would barely qualify for a "Saturday Night Live" skit. Just how dense do they think Americans are? Before examining the elements of the "plan," which could (and might) have been written on a napkin, we are entitled to ask why they came up with one at all. In November, their leader, Howard Dean, testily announced that it was not incumbent upon the opposition party to come up with a plan. A month later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that Democrats would "produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections," but it would "not include a position on Iraq” because they couldn't reach a consensus. Pelosi said, "There is no one Democratic voice … and there is no one Democratic position.” But something must have changed their minds. Maybe it finally dawned on them that for all their gloating about President Bush's low approval ratings, their own ratings are also anemic. This is reportedly the second in a series of agenda papers they plan to release, the first being -- try not to gag -- "Honest Leadership.” Though this document claims to contain a plan for Iraq, it really offers little new. It outlines broad goals for the war on terror and Iraq, but offers no strategic, much less tactical, specifics. After all their complaining, the Democrats' plan doesn't even demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Why? For the same reason they took so long to come up with a "plan” of their own in the first place. They couldn't agree among themselves. Now they have come up with a junior high school-level outline designed to convince Americans they are better equipped to lead our nation in war. Actually, I don't mean to offend junior high school students, who also might feel insulted at such patronizing slogans as "tough and smart" and "strong and smart" -- as if the human mind is capable of making a distinction between those two formulations. They don't bother to tell us precisely how their "plan" is "stronger and smarter" any more than they ever fill in the blanks for their empty slogan "We can do better." But during the press conference announcing the plan, I could have easily envisioned Sen. Harry Reid morphing into Popeye, downing a can of spinach and flexing his bicep with an admiring Nancy Pelosi as Olive Oyl looking on wistfully. Actually, I think I did see that image. Perhaps the plan's most amateurish component is its declaration that, by golly, they're going to quit fooling around and capture Osama bin Laden. Again, they don't say how, or even give us a hint, but can you blame them? When you were playing cowboys and Indians or war on the kindergarten playground, did you want to give away your battle plans to the other kids? The most insulting aspect of the "plan" is that it mostly just reaffirms goals this administration is already pursuing. "We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty … " Significant transition? Excuse me for being underwhelmed with those weasel words. Excuse me for being too obtuse to fathom how this differs from the administration's already-stated goals. Excuse me for being so sarcastic and wanting to be much worse. It is incomprehensible Democratic leaders believe they can rehabilitate their richly deserved image as soft on defense and terror with one nondescript issue statement. They have voted against our weapons systems for decades, gutted the defense budget under President Clinton and opposed President Bush almost every step of the way in the war on terror. Do they now think they can waltz in with a mere three-page wish list and magically regain the people's trust on national security? Most remarkably, the document reveals just how thoroughly partisan the Democratic leadership has become -- not that we needed further proof. The tipoff is in their plan's virtual indistinguishability from the president's goals. Since their plan ratifies most of the president's aims in the war on terror, they have just forfeited all their lame excuses for having opposed him so relentlessly on war issues. They would do well to remember that the terrorists are our enemy, not George Bush. It's time they remove their partisan blinders and join him in this war, instead of throwing up phony opposition and phonier plans -- unless, of course, they don't mean a word contained in their "plan" in the first place. David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com. He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19048)	4/4/2006 5:22:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ON PLANS, POLICIES, REALITIES, AND NATIONAL SECURITY TKS jim geraghty reporting I take another look at the Democrats' national security plan, in the New York Sun (linked below). Over on Slate, Fred Kaplan is simultaneously full of criticism for the Democrats’ plan, and yet praises it compared to the policies of the Bush administration. I don’t know. This is comparing policies that are being enacted in the messy, complicated proving ground of the real world, with a “rough outline” that “raises at least as many questions as it answers” and “reeks of banality” (Kaplan’s words). The Democrats’ rough outline remains safely on paper, free from complications. We can’t see the consequences of, say, the Democratic proposal to downgrade our efforts to hold Putin accountable for his autocratic measures in order to get better cooperation on securing Russia’s nuclear material. Maybe we end up with a secure nuclear arsenal and a semi-dictator we can live with; maybe we end up with a power-hungry, oil-and-gas-rich Russian empire determined to use energy resources for blackmail, Ukrainian democracy gets strangled in its crib, and most of Eastern Europe becomes vassal states. I almost would love to see America try to “screen 100 percent of container and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin” as Democrats call for (and Kaplan questions), just so we can watch the U.S. economy shut down, and see everyone who supported the idea suddenly realize, ‘oh, wait a minute, maybe the issue isn’t that simple.’ There are unforeseen consequences to everything – including noble acts like toppling a terrible dictator like Saddam Hussein. It would be nice if our leaders thought of that more, and were honest with the public about the near-certainty of unpleasant, unforeseen consequences. On a somewhat related note, I’m a fan of Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, and I liked these lines in a recent posting: <<< In the Long War, things are quite the other way around. We get to choose where to push – and the Bad Guys, despite what you see on the news, aren’t very good at fighting back. If the Long War lasts as long as the Cold War, and we were to keep losing soldiers at the present rate… then we’d lose 75% fewer soldiers than we lost in Korea and Vietnam combined. But you can be goddamn sure that given the chance, our Islamist foes would cut the heart out of New York. They damn near did it once, using little more than boxcutters. Imagine what they would do with badder weapons. The Cold War was easier in another respect: there’s really nothing like the ever-present threat of total annihilation to focus the mind. Today’s threat is more abstract, and that makes it easier for most normal people to keep their heads in the sand. If we’re going to win a long, ideological war, we need our primary schools to our children what patriotism is - and for the most part, they don’t. We need our college professors to give our best and brightest the intellectual ammunition to confront our destroyers – and for the most part, they don’t. We need our public thinkers to defend our laws and our way of life against foreign aggression – and for the most part, they don’t. We need our entertainers to choose the home team – and for the most part, they don’t. We need our politicians to show the backbone of Churchill, but for the most part, they don’t. And we need our military to understand, embrace, and put everything on the line for their country. One out of six? That’s pretty bad. Is it enough? Probably not. I said before it took the constant threat of a nuclear launch for us to keep our focus during the Cold War – end even then it was a hit or miss affair. It’s pretty obvious right now that we lack the tools to keep our focus during the Long War. >>> Read the whole thing. vodkapundit.com tks.nationalreview.com nysun.com slate.com