posted on August 15, 2007 01:59:58 PM new
This HAS to be one of THE best editorials I've read in a long, long time.
So on the mark. And imo, exactly how the dems are going to be seen by the voters.
=========================
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Democrats' disgrace
August 15, 2007
Tony Blankley - Sometimes we can better understand where we are politically from afar than from within. Consider this assessment from Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential magazine, Der Spiegel, this week:
"The wind has shifted in Washington. America, not just its president, is at war. The Democrats are still critical of the failed Iraq campaign, but they are no longer opposed to the 'War on Terror' in general. It has been accepted, and not just as a metaphor... Ninety two percent of Americans are opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and a majority doesn't want to see the US's special detention camp at Guantanamo Bay closed. At the moment, the American electorate's biggest criticism of Bush is that he has not been aggressive enough in pursuing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
"Indeed, when voters hit the ballot box in November 2008, they will be looking for more than just a candidate charismatic and clever enough to lead the country politically. They will also ask themselves which of the candidates is sufficiently tough, crafty and brutal to win the multi-front war that the Bush administration has begun.
"Many Americans now despise Bush [because of Iraq]. Nevertheless, Americans are still loathe to admit defeat. This is precisely what distinguishes Europeans from Americans... The Americans favor the power of force, even in its crudest form, which explains why the U.S. military might is so superior to that of all other nations." (By Gabor Steingart. Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.)
We see evidence that the Democrats are beginning to appreciate the truth of the above description. The New York Times has suddenly started counseling caution about any sudden departure from Iraq.
Sen. Barack Obama's steroid-enhanced rhetoric now has him calling — Rambo-like — for possible pre-emptive war against Pakistan.
Sen. Hillary Clinton announces that she might use nuclear weapons against terrorists (I hope she doesn't find the terrorists in New York, where one of my sons lives, or London, my hometown).
The Democratic congressional leaders quickly passed President Bush's requested FISA electronic intercepts authority.
The Democrats, after spending the winter, spring and early summer frantically calling for getting out of Iraq as fast as their little feet can carry them, are now, as autumn approaches, demonstrating their Olympic-class back-pedaling skills.
By winter (with the complicity of the drive-by media hat tip to Rush Limbaugh) the Democrats hope to expunge the historic record of their failure of war nerve this spring. This is the moment for Republicans from the president, to the candidates for president, to the incumbents and challengers for offices all the way down to dog catcher (and especially dog catcher) to remind the public of the springtime Democratic Party defeatism and lost nerve.
They should be inspired to follow the immortal advice of Gen. Patton to his troops regarding what they should do to the Nazi enemy: "We are going to hold them by the nose and kick them in the ass... we are going to go through them like crap through a goose." Of course, the Democrats are only the domestic opposition, not the enemy. In American politics we have no American enemies — only philosophical opponents — I mean that.
The leadership of the Democratic Party has, by its public words this spring, disgraced themselves for a generation. Republicans have the right — and the duty — to engrave in the public mind the springtime Democratic perfidy and cowardice in the face of the enemy.
This spring and early summer:
Sen. Harry Reid said the war is lost;
Gov. Bill Richardson said that on his first day in the Oval Office he would order our troops to leave Iraq immediately (even if it meant throwing down their weapons on the way out);
Hillary bragged that if Mr. Bush doesn't end the war, she would do so immediately upon her arriving in the Oval Office (God preserve us);
and Mr. Obama took pride of place in his adamant opposition to, and call for immediate departure from, the Iraq war.
Gen. Patton also observed that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." That is as true today as it was six decades ago.
(This is the great misreading of the American public by the current Democratic Party. We Americans are only sentimental about dogs — we have three in our family — not about human losers. We love kick-ass football players — unless they hurt a dog, and then we righteously send them to hell, where they belong).
The public must not be permitted to forget these cowardly public statements by the Democrats. It is the job of the Republicans this fall and winter to remorselessly and repeatedly remind the public of what the Democrats were saying this spring. In that disgrace lies the potential for a well-deserved Democratic Party defeat in November 2008.
WashingtonTimes Editorial
-------------------------------------------
"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."
"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 August 15, 2007 08:40:25 PM new
"No surprise there. Liberals RARELY have the will to defend American or her interests."
Are you serious? Is that a trait you want in an American president? Brutal is a word usually used to describe a despot or dictator--like Saddam or Idi Amin. Only you could criticize liberals for not wanting a brutal president. Being brutal has nothing to do with defending America. Do you even know the meaning of the word brutal?
Brutal: befitting a brute: as a : grossly ruthless or unfeeling <a brutal slander> b : CRUEL , COLD-BLOODED
posted on August 15, 2007 08:56:19 PM newthe American electorate's biggest criticism of Bush is that he has not been aggressive enough in pursuing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
So much for all the lies from Bush. What ever happened to we will hunt him down. We will get him dead or alive. That's right it was George Wanker Bush waving his pom poms and spreading propaganda for his little war.
They will also ask themselves which of the candidates is sufficiently tough, crafty and brutal to win the multi-front war that the Bush administration has begun.
Somebody else will have to clean up Bush's mess that he has left worldwide. So much for the war being a "a short, short conflict", "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Many Americans now despise Bush [because of Iraq].
The understatement of the decade. I think that needs to be said again. Many Americans now despise Bush [because of Iraq].
The public must not be permitted to forget these cowardly public statements by the Democrats
The public must not be deceived any longer by the promises and scare tactics from the Bush administration. The public must remember all the lies that got us into this war in the first place.
George Wanker Bush : "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.”
Let's not forget this quote by George Hand Wanker Bush: While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Only if the son would have listened to his father.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
