posted on February 25, 2007 09:19:47 AM new
Nine reasons why a democratic president couldn't handle the war on terrorism.
Agree/disagree??? LOL
I AGREE. And I still maintain is also is, in large part, due to BDS.
===========
[T]he modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.
Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians.
And Bill Clinton?
Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein's attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.
That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around.
Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.
1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups.
When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it's simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results.
Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.
2) Ronald Reagan once said that, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror.
This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.
3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, "Being serious about defending America may cost you your job."
After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.
4) The Democratic base doesn't take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals.
It's old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism.
If you have a Democratic base that isn't serious about fighting terrorism -- and it isn't -- you will have a Democratic President that isn't serious about fighting terrorism.
5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they're usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists.
That's why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan.
However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.
6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal.
Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.
7) The Democrats are overly concerned with "international opinion," AKA "European opinion." The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance.
Other than Britain, they don't have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth.
Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point -- yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it.
This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.
8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system.
The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it's not advisable to reveal intelligence methods -- or because our soldiers aren't trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone.
How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he'd be back shooting at our troops the next day?
If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.
9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President.
As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies.
Add to that the complete hysteria we've seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S.
Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.
If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 25, 2007 09:23 AM ]
posted on February 25, 2007 10:57:55 AM new
Oh so then sybil must believe that clintons bombing of Iraq in 1998 to rid them of the nuclear, bio and chemical weapon programs GREW terrorism more so they attacked us on 9-11 because of that. tsk tsk tsk
And of course, sybil overlooks that during the clinton administration the U.S. interests and our soldiers were ATTACKED FIVE TIMES. But clinton didn't do a thing....and they STILL attacked us BIG TIME on 9-11.
So now IF we just bring our troops home, surrender to the likes of AQ and binladen....they have some sort of PROMISE he'll leave us alone????
I'd sure like to see it. We'll be experiencing ANOTHER 9-11 IF we show weakness or if we SURRENDER to them in Iraq.
MOST normal people recognize....even the dems in our Congress aren't so stupid to think all would be well IF only we follow the radical nutcases path....admit defeat and bring them home.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 25, 2007 11:26:12 AM new
Sybil should read what HER conservative DEMS are saying.....I think they're 'normal'.
=======
and 'waco' says 'we had the terrorists BEAT'.
ROFLMHO
There you go, coincoach, 'wacos' showing you HIS FACTS. LOL LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 25, 2007 11:44:45 AM new
Since the current demos are making a comparison between Iraq & Viet Nam, look at how well the demos at the time handled that war.
Now with the "Cut & Run" policy they are wanting to implement, they are inviting more deaths of US troops & bring further terror attacks onto US shores.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on February 25, 2007 12:10:33 PM new
That's EXACTLY what they're doing.
And their plan for dealing with terrorism worldwide????
They're going to TALK the terrorists out of carry out their publically stated goals.
How DUMB can anyone be?
But....they still refuse to admit that clinton NOT dealing with the FIVE ATTACKS against our interests....murdering our troops....led up to the terrorists thinking we were WEAK....paper tigers, binladen called us, so he grew BOLDER....and 9-11 was a WAKE UP CALL.
THEY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 25, 2007 12:35:08 PM new
An interesting piece that speaks to WHY the U.S. can't fight terrorist the way the liberals would like us to do....the European way.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 25, 2007 01:27:13 PM new
I cannot believe this.
Reading 'First Read' on MSNBC today....the lead-in spoke about murtha's FAILED proposal on funding.
BUT said while the dems are still working on the wording for their proposal to LIMIT the President's war powers, given to him when THEY [most] all agreed to go to war, one '[bright ] idea they've come up with THIS asinine proposition:
PROOF, once again, NO democratic President would EVER be able to fight the war on terrorism, because they haven't got a CLUE....
They know what they don't want to happen....but give them a problem to SOLVE....and they're totally LOST.
The AP: "Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the [Senate] measure remains unsettled.
One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces."
LOL....I think IF they pass that bill.....then each and every democratic congressman and women who would VOTE for something so ridiculous, should be there with the military troops/units so THEY could point out to our troops WHICH insurgent IS AQ...and which aren't. LOL LOL I can see it now.
So....anyone else that's shooting at them....or innocent Iraqi's ...IF they're NOT AQ....just walk away????
brother.....
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 25, 2007 01:53:27 PM new
LIAR_K,
Expert after expert have said BUSHY has become a recruiter for Terrorism because of his Iraq Invasion.
You know it, I know it and the vast majority of Americans know it.
So if you want to pick apart words be my guest. The truth is making you Delusional.
Reality says you cons have very little left in defense of BUSHY.
Liar_k is running for President of Delusion-ville along with her step-son Bear for Vice by sticking to his GUNS.
Sir Ivor Roberts, the British ambassador to Italy, who reportedly believes that President George Bush is the "greatest recruiting sergeant for al-Qaida",
Bush Is History's Top Terrorist
By Harvey Wasserman
As the fourth global-warmed hurricane in two months rips through Florida, we are reminded that George W. Bush is history's top terrorist.
We know, of course, that Bush has slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, imprisoned hundreds without trial or charges, and presided over the torture and sexual abuse of many of them. He is the world's leading recruiter for hate-America terrorists the world over.
Bush's preemptive militarism has paved the way for countless crusades for oil and fundamentalism in the decades to come.
posted on February 25, 2007 02:28:55 PM new
Maybe 'waco' can explain why HIS newly found congressional POWER - CAN'T get their anti-war garbage stopped.
No? Figured he couldn't.
He babbles and babbles on but all can see his party with FULL control of the house and the senate....just can't manage to get anything worthwhile PASSED.
So, 'waco'....consider this...IF you're one of the truly NUTCASES that believes this President is a terrorists......then
I'd like to see you stand between President Bush and any one of the AQ terrorists....so you can learn just how stupid that belief really is.
I'll take bets on which one slices your head off first.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 26, 2007 06:34:40 AM new
LIAR_K SAID this BULL ROAR about me, "So, 'waco'....consider this...IF you're one of the truly NUTCASES that believes this President is a terrorists"
You know very well I never said BUSHY was a terrorists. I said BUSHY's BLUNDERS in Iraq have RECRUITED terrorists from around the world.
That is like Iraq 101 everybody knows BUSHY BLUNDERS RECRUITS TERRORISTS.
] idea they've come up with THIS asinine proposition: