You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
"The Weakest Adminstration on Defense We Have Seen in Many, Many Years"
2006-03-01
Howard Dean(!) castigating the GOP for being weak on defense.
"Karl Rove says that the Republicans are going to win on the issue of defense. I submit to you that if the issue is defense, the Republicans will lose because this is the weakest Administration on defense that we've seen in many, many years. What I mean is this. For five years this President has been in the White House. For five years North Korea continues to possess nuclear weapons.
You want to start a war in North Korea? Ask Jimmuah first if it's okay, 'k?
For five years this Administration has been in the White House, Iran moves closer every day to producing nuclear weapons.
Which they started on Bill Clinton's watch -- heck maybe on Reagan's watch. You want us to nuke them?
For four years, Osama Bin Laden has been decomposing on the loose and remains so. And today we see the specter, as reported in the Jerusalem Post- of a company that is about to take over American ports, which actively continues today to boycott Israel.

"The Democrats have a better idea. First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea.
Uh-huh. Care to share how?
Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
Which is what Dubya said, but good, we agree on this, and that means we can quote you when Dubya takes action.
Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden ...
Oh, so you're going to invade Waziristan? Capture Lahore? March on Islamabad. I knew you were nuts, Howie, but I didn't think you had those kind of stones ...
... and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies.
As opposed to British companies.
"We are not simply speaking about the United Arab Emirates -- we are also speaking about the western ports which are controlled by companies controlled by the Chinese government. Foreign governments of any kind ought not to be controlling American ports, especially when the Coast Guard already recommended that they could not guarantee the security of the ports.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeaarrrgh!"
Posted by:Jackal

#58  Spock - "Only Nixon could go to China"

I hadda have my wife explain it to me!

I miss Star Trek, but loved Mancini's "The Pink Panther" Seafarious!

Goodnite.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-03-01 22:41  

#57  Are Communist-controlled/domin "Fascists", Nationalists, Rightists, and Conservatives, etc. in Russia STILL FASCISTS? STILL COMMUNISTS? CLINTONISM > BOTH? Rightist-in-Name = Communist-in-Name??? THE MOTHER SHOULD KNOW WHOM THE FATHER OF HER CHILDREN ARE!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-03-01 22:36  

#56  And if you listen to his spiel and buy you'll explode if rear-ended?

I agree. ;-)
Posted by: .com   2006-03-01 22:10  

#55  "The title of this piece reminds me of a used car salesman telling us that they don't make cars like this anymore."

..as he points to a '72 Pinto.

Posted by: Thraimble Greque5524   2006-03-01 22:08  

#54  eltoroverde, how wonderful that you have such a wise and articulate father. And, how lucky he is to have offspring who appreciate him.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-01 22:04  

#53  The title of this piece reminds me of a used car salesman telling us that they don't make cars like this anymore. This will be a classic.

Push an absurd falsehood as if it was the hidden truth and let the suckers customers in on the secret. And fro an extra 50 dollars, we can make you a patron. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
P.S. Bring on Hillary......please.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-03-01 19:44  

#52  BRAVO!! I bow to dear ol' Dad.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 19:13  

#51  Give Dean donkey ears and tail and you have the party of jack asses personified. He-haw...
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-01 17:07  

#50  Wow, eltoroverde, that rocks!

He gets it - in spades. Thx for the post!
Posted by: .com   2006-03-01 16:25  

#49  Just to throw my 2 cents in, the following is taken from a recent political discussion involving my father. Speaking to his sister, he said:

Well, Pete [his brother] and I aren't that conservative. I would say we were pragmatists. I think we both believe that you are your brother's keeper, and that those of us who have been more fortunate owe something back to the world and our fellow man. We just disagree on how to do that-at least with the "liberal" establishment. Having watched the Democratic party shift from ensuring a fair shake for the working class, protection from cartels and collusive business practices, and equal opportunity-not equal outcomes-to a bunch of nut cases screeming and shouting that everyone who disagrees with them is mean spirited and cruel, I am afraid that the only future for the Democrats is sequential self immolation, which they have done a pretty good job of. I don't think this is good for the country and I wish we had an effective opposition party. We don't.

Since Brown vs. Board of Education through the Great Society of LBJ, I have watched forty years of ineffective, socially destructive, socialist policies which have done far more to hurt those they were supposed to help, and little to "get" the villains "responsible" for these inequities. At a minimum, I would say that subsidized housing programs create slums, rent control destroys cities, educational reform has turned public schools-- in my mother's day the finest in the world-- into academic cesspools, equal opportunity advantages some while discriminating against others, and the ones being hurt are not the ones who discriminated against the ancestors of the ones being helped, medicare has dehumanized health care, and the last thing we need is more of the same. I also think there are some things worth going to war over, easy for me to say since I didn't have to--but Pete did. Moreover, having spent my life in the investment field I know that social welfare economies are bad for everyone, and more so for the ones at the bottom than the ones at the top of the economic food chain. High, redistributive tax policies have never worked, anywhere, and if you want to see the practical response of people who lived under a socialist regime, look at the tax policies in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. None of them have income tax rates over 20%. I am not plumping for that to come true in the US, but I think the Democrats just keep beating on the gong of "the rich paying their fair share", which is fine as a truism, but who defines fair share? This constant demagoguing of one economic class against another is wrong headed, if not a purely cynical political ploy-which I think it largely is.

It is a fact that it costs more to do anything through the government than the private sector, the service is worse, and the alternatives nonexistant. It is a fact that third party payment systems don't work, and inevitably lead to rationing, whether it be housing, education, health care, or whatever. I do beleive that working class and middle class people are taxed too heavily, and the democrats have succeeded in ensnaring the broad middle class with it's attempts at engineering the tax code to punish the wealthy-- which, via the AMT, they are now doing to what used to be their voters. I am pretty laissez faire about matters of personal conduct which do not harm others, and should not be the subject of civil legislation. And I do believe that laws should be enacted by elected officials, not judges, government agencies, and bureacrats.

As to the matters you raised, I can't do much better than Pete did. I have no qualms over the Dubai ports company managing Ports Newark and Elizabeth, as very few harbors are managed by governments anywhere in the world, which is also true of many airports. And I am annoyed-- but not surprised-- at the irresponsible way the press has played this, since the Dubai ports company was thoroughly vetted, and only manages the business end of the ports, not security. It's sad to see the NY Times, which was once a fine-- if dull-- newspaper of record descend into a partisan rag for liberal political interests-- which the major networks have also done. Really, there is no fair and balanced newspaper of record anymore, anywhere in the world. And while you may not like Bush, how can you treat him as a fool? After all, he got better grades at Yale than Kerry did. So, if I were you I wouldn't move to another country-- the US is the worst, except for all the others. So Stay. We'd miss you if you left! Love to all...

I have to say, I think the man wraps it all up quite nicely.
Posted by: eltoroverde   2006-03-01 16:20  

#48  initiated
Posted by: Rafael   2006-03-01 16:17  

#47  It is Gorbachev who started the ball rolling with his perestroika (sp?)which set the mood for the events to come.

Oops. I forgot about Glasnost c. 1985. Perestroika came later. Nonetheless, both were iniated by Gorbachev.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-03-01 16:16  

#46  Many things caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important one was that the Russian people gave up on communism.

I would argue that this is not the most important reason. There is still significant support for communism in Russia, mainly due to nostalgia, and the simple truth that most people indeed had it better under communism.

There are two important reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, besides the obvious pressure from the US: collapse of communist regimes in the soviet satellite states, and Mikhail Gorbachev. It is Gorbachev who started the ball rolling with his perestroika (sp?)which set the mood for the events to come. If it wasn't for Gorbachev, it is very possible that the Soviet Union might still exist today. Anyone else would have sent tanks in to crush the revolts in eastern Europe.

A third, private reason of mine, for the collapse of the Soviets is the realization of some big shots in Moscow that they could have it better if they just let communism collapse. Indeed, there are now 32 billionaires living in Moscow alone. This would not have been possible under communism of course. Sure, ideology can be so romantic, but nothing beats cold, hard, green cash.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-03-01 16:08  

#45  "Fortunately Hillary will kick him out after she becomes POTUS :)"

I, for one, appreciate the fact that we are given this heads-up with sufficient frequency to place the mountains of carfeully nuanced verbiage posted in proper perspective.

Thanks, lh. You're the most honest Moonbat I "know", heh. :-)
Posted by: .com   2006-03-01 16:05  

#44  Liberalhawk:

Revising history, are we? Carter did NOT fund the Afghan rebels. He weakly allowed the CIA to "give them some minimal assistance", which was greatly expanded under Ronald Reagan. Carter also did NOT open relations with China - it was Richard Nixon in 1973. Carter was the weakest, most arrogant, most insufferable idiot to ever be president of the United States. He caused more harm to the United States and world politics in four years than any president in US history. A friend of mine was appointed as one of Carter's military aides. He resigned from the Air Force in 1978 after 13 months in the job - he couldn't stand being in the same room with his "boss". Carter was a catastrophe, and we're still trying to recover (I.E., Iran).

Many things caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important one was that the Russian people gave up on communism. Reagan's military buildup put the screws to the Russian equivalent of "guns and butter", and drove them to bankruptcy, but the death spiral had already begun - probably as early as the mid-1970's. Reagan's push kicked the final props out from under the dying regime.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-03-01 14:21  

#43  whatever happens in Iraq, its the IRaqis faultand who said that? One poster? Funny, I've not found that to be the prevailing wisdom at rantburg.

And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy

It is not fair for me to lump you in with the prevailing wisdom of your party and those who profess to be liberals. You can see that work needs to be done and as such you have supported the effort. I take it back.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 14:13  

#42  "And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy. You need a mirror."

When exactly did i do that?

I question the desire to promote democracy on the part of some folks who say that whatever happens in Iraq, its the IRaqis fault. Thats not Bushs position, AFAIK.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 14:06  

#41  "Of course Nixon went to China. And Carter was utterly surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, something that occurred in December of 1979. The majority of the US-funded/supplied counter-offensive against the them occurred long after Carter was out of office. We did not supply Stingers to the Muj until 1986. So crediting Carter with the fall of the Soviet Union is a complete belly laugh.

You make a lot of good points LH. This is not one of them."


Nixon went to China, but we did not grant them diplo recognition till Carter. That was a deliberate attempt to balance against the USSR.

And yes, more money flowed after Carter left office, cause there were more years after Carter left office. The policy however had been established by Carter, and in particular by Brezinski. Of course the policy continued to have bipartisan support through the '80s.


I am not crediting Carter with the fall of the USSR. Carter deserves SOME credit, as does Reagan. But most of the credit goes to the internal weaknesses of the Soviet economy, at the time that east asia was on the rise.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 14:04  

#40  heh... are you talking about your cherished (but failed) 20th century beliefs or Islam?
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 14:03  

#39  "I wasn't aware that Buckley was an elected politician."

So what? Most (not all) of the dems calling for withdrawl arent elected politicians either.

"Besides, pointing fingers of blame at the republicans does little to change the fact that liberal policies and liberal politics have failed. I won't cite them ALL, takes too long, but I will note that the rise of Islam and its "tolerance" will be its legacy."

The rise of Islam took place in the 7 and 8 centuries, long before any kind of liberalism existed. What we're saying today is the turmoils of a civ thats anyting but on the rise.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 14:00  

#38  This war would have been over long ago if it weren't for the belief by terrorists that they can wait out George Bush get us to withdraw. Every made for television bombing that costs someone their precious life, for no reason, is due to that fact. If we were united in strength, then the war probably would not have lasted this long. But every day, Howard Dean and the liberal legacy of appeasement give the terrorists hope that we are weak and time is on their side.

The sad thing is they are wrong. Despite the voices from the left, the American people are not weak. We will not settle for Sharia or speech codes. The end result of not uniting behind George Bush and the war is that it will escalate and many will die.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 13:55  

#37  Of course Nixon went to China. And Carter was utterly surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, something that occurred in December of 1979. The majority of the US-funded/supplied counter-offensive against the them occurred long after Carter was out of office. We did not supply Stingers to the Muj until 1986. So crediting Carter with the fall of the Soviet Union is a complete belly laugh.

You make a lot of good points LH. This is not one of them.
Posted by: remoteman   2006-03-01 13:51  

#36  LOL LOTP!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-03-01 13:34  

#35  Yes TW Nixon DID go to China. The whole thing was termed "Ping Pong" diplomacy cause we played Ping Pong with them (I think it's their national sport).

The whole point was that ONLY Nixon (aka a conservative anti-communist) could open that door because any Democrat doing it would have been seen (correctly?) as treasonous.
Posted by: AlanC   2006-03-01 13:33  

#34  got this from my niece recently:

A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious.

On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein is a miserable, lowlife scumbag, and he yelled back that Senator Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left-wing liberal drunk.

So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean spirited woman!" He retaliated by yelling, "Oh yeah? Well so does Hillary Clinton!"

And there we were, standing in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-01 13:31  

#33  Didn't Nixon go to China when he was still President? A classmate of mine sang in an opera of that name, back when the world was younger.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-01 13:24  

#32  Besides, I find it funny that you look to Hillary as your savior. A woman who is nothing but raw ambition, and used every tactic that is a complete invalidation of everything you believe in; private investigators, background investigations, using the IRS to intimidate citizens, firing Billy Dale; promoting lying under oath for the cause of her husband providing postions in exchange for sexual favors (what about the woman who didn't get Monica's job because she didn't peform sex). And remind what her plan is for the war. Is she for it or against it today.

And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy. You need a mirror.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 13:23  

#31  It is impossible to imagine how the Democrats could further marginalize themselves. Perhaps they could form a caucus with al Qaeda, Hamas and the Iranian mullahs.

Back in WWII, much of the Democrats' behavior would have been seen as nothing short of treason. How they can suppose it is anything less right now is a measure of their collective cognitive dissonance, overall anti-Americanism and general self-loathing.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-01 13:17  

#30  I wasn't aware that Buckley was an elected politician.

Besides, pointing fingers of blame at the republicans does little to change the fact that liberal policies and liberal politics have failed. I won't cite them ALL, takes too long, but I will note that the rise of Islam and its "tolerance" will be its legacy.

Today's true liberals (not just the appeasing tools raging against the machine) are like that activist who was killed by the grizzly - they want it to be so - and would rather die than acknowledge the fact that it simply is not.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 13:15  

#29  The past?

William Buckley. Joe Biden.

Which one is calling for withdrawl from Iraq?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 13:06  

#28  #26

I was referring to his actual acts in office, not his record since.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 13:04  

#27  "It's all ancient history liberalhawk."

You will note it wasnt me who began the discussion of history. I was responding to such a discussion.

I certainly think it was a mistake to give Dean the DNC chair. The DNC chair is elected by the reps of state parties, who believed that Dean could do magic with fundraising, which was more important than anything stupid he said on policy. In fact, IIUC, he hasnt been such a good fundraiser. Those State party reps deserve a good kick in the pants. And the many folks in the Dem party who opposed Dean for party chair deserve an apology.

Fortunately Hillary will kick him out after she becomes POTUS :)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 13:03  

#26  Good thing Jimmy Carter didnt beleive them, and pushed for human rights and democracy in Latin America.

You're really going to cite Jimmy "Dances with Dictators" Carter for a human rights record? The man who certified the fraud election in Venezuela? The man who thinks we should pump cash into Hamas?

Jesus, that's desperate.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-01 13:01  

#25  appeasers of ruthless dictators.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 12:06  

#24  And Bush has done more to further fuel cell and alternative fuels than Clinton or any other president has ever done.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 12:03  

#23  It's all ancient history liberalhawk. The bottom line is that today your party is a hollow shell that lives by the polls and elevates idiots like Howard Dean to positions of prominence. As this article illustrates, their only "plan" to win the war on terror is to say that that they could do it better than the Republicans - but they refuse to tell us how.

Today's liberal party is a joke. And not a funny one at that. Other than support of the environment, I can think of no liberal policy that has not resulted in making the problems worse, rather than better, because they demand unachievable, immaculate perfection that prevents people from making difficult leadership decisions to move toward a common good....except perhaps decisons on the environment.

The Democratic party is a corrupt arm of organized crime. Peace Activists are appeasement of ruthless dictator activists.

You're living in the past.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 12:01  

#22  "In 1983, a couple of leading academics and politicans, most of them Democrats, wrote a public letter to Pres. Reagan. In that letter they pointed out that the Soviet Union was a fact of life, that we needed to accommodate ourselves to that, and that in some ways the USSR was actually superior to us. It was therefore wrong for Reagan to refer to them as an 'Evil Empire.'"

The most important policy in taking the USSR down was the aid to the Afghan rebels, initiated by Jimmy Carter. And the US recognition of China, also initiated by Jimmy Carter. The USSR was also brought down by its own failure, and the need to change to match the rapid growth of Japan(!). Most controversial Reagan policies, like in central america, had little to do with bringing down the USSR. The only one which may well have, was the ballistic missile defense program, and theres controversy among historians about how central a role that played.

Its nice that Eastern Europeans appreciate how Reagans rhetoric gave them hope. For the most part he was right to do so. Of course some Dems were quite talking about standing up to the USSR - Gary Hart for example.


"Seven years later the USSR was gone. And the people of Eastern Europe speak of Reagan as a savior.

In 1987 another group of academics and experts, this time within the CIA, issued a report about East Germny -- remember them, the 'Democratic' Republic of Germany (GDR)? In the white paper, they noted that the GDR had the 9th largest economy in the world, a content population and a stable political structure. They too urged Reagan to accommodate himself to this.

Twenty-two months after the report was issued, the GDR was gone. Gone.

Good thing Reagan listened to the experts, eh?"

Ya know, I seem to recall that it was the RIGHT that was mainly talking about how strong the Soviet military was. And using that as the basis for a huge and expensive military buildup. Turned out the Soviet military was a paper tiger, as much so as the rest of the Soviet state. As strong a patriot as Daniel P Moynihan pointed this out.


"A third point to ponder: throughout the 1960s and 70s, and really well into the 80s, Democrats, liberals and academics stated, repeatedly, that Latin and South America wasn't ever going to be ready for democracy. There were all sorts of cultural, ethnic and economic issues that would prevent democracy from taking root there, and the best we could hope for would be some sort of socialist strongman, some socialist system that would 'redistribute' the wealth in a 'sustainable' way."


Good thing Jimmy Carter didnt beleive them, and pushed for human rights and democracy in Latin America. It seems to me it was conservatives, notably Jeane Kirkpatrick, who said that authoritarianism was the only real alternative for Latin America, at least in the short to medium run.


"Today Latin and South American countries are, with a single exception, democratic and free."

"Now the Democrats today are pushing the same, tired baloney in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't ready and won't ever be ready for democracy, for free markets, for personal liberty. Funny, Afghanistan and Iraq are already proving them wrong."

Actually I see plenty of paleocons saying this, and few prominent Dems. And now even some not so paleocons are sliding over into the "If Iraq goes to hell its the IRaqis damned fault" camp. Hell you can see that here, stated by some of RBs most prolific posters.

"So given the miserable track record of Democrats on simple stuff like freedom, personal liberty and democracy, why should we trust you on defense"

Because skepticism about the spread of democracy is and has been widespread among paleocons, GOP "realists", burkeans like George Will, and "Jacksonians", while SOME democrats, true to their Wilsonian heritage, have been more strongly pro-democratization for a long time (and i include here both iraq war hawks, and a few Iraq war doves)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-01 11:42  

#21  Liberals are uncommonly stupid.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-01 11:34  

#20  Seems to me that it would be Uncommonly Stupid to equate poll numbers with right or wrong.
Posted by: Fred   2006-03-01 11:31  

#19  Bravo Steve! A great short history of liberal politics. You left out that many of the Academics saw nothing wrong with South East Asian country embracing Maxists policies. Of course we all can learn from the Combodian/Loas/Vietnam models. I think they had to stop counting after 1 million or so bodies. Also, I don't think any of them will have a good or sustainable economy ikn the near future.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-03-01 11:25  

#18  To the fellow with the moniker 'Common Sense': just to add to other comments, a couple of points for you to ponder.

In 1983, a couple of leading academics and politicans, most of them Democrats, wrote a public letter to Pres. Reagan. In that letter they pointed out that the Soviet Union was a fact of life, that we needed to accommodate ourselves to that, and that in some ways the USSR was actually superior to us. It was therefore wrong for Reagan to refer to them as an 'Evil Empire.'

Seven years later the USSR was gone. And the people of Eastern Europe speak of Reagan as a savior.

In 1987 another group of academics and experts, this time within the CIA, issued a report about East Germny -- remember them, the 'Democratic' Republic of Germany (GDR)? In the white paper, they noted that the GDR had the 9th largest economy in the world, a content population and a stable political structure. They too urged Reagan to accommodate himself to this.

Twenty-two months after the report was issued, the GDR was gone. Gone.

Good thing Reagan listened to the experts, eh?

A third point to ponder: throughout the 1960s and 70s, and really well into the 80s, Democrats, liberals and academics stated, repeatedly, that Latin and South America wasn't ever going to be ready for democracy. There were all sorts of cultural, ethnic and economic issues that would prevent democracy from taking root there, and the best we could hope for would be some sort of socialist strongman, some socialist system that would 'redistribute' the wealth in a 'sustainable' way.

Today Latin and South American countries are, with a single exception, democratic and free.

Now the Democrats today are pushing the same, tired baloney in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't ready and won't ever be ready for democracy, for free markets, for personal liberty. Funny, Afghanistan and Iraq are already proving them wrong.

So given the miserable track record of Democrats on simple stuff like freedom, personal liberty and democracy, why should we trust you on defense?
Posted by: Steve White   2006-03-01 11:15  

#17  Continuous Bull Shit TV's latest poll has Bush's approval rating at 34%. what they don't tell you is of the 300 people they polled, 2/3 were Democrats yet they claim this is a fair assesment of the American people's views. Howard has nothing to add to the National debate.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-03-01 10:48  

#16  Getting back on topic, I couldnÂ’t think of five people I served with that enjoyed having Clinton as the CINC. He didnÂ’t promote any great project except the donÂ’t ask/donÂ’t tell policy. If there is something I missed please tell me.

Does "Visa Express" count?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-01 10:30  

#15  Ah, our CS is back again. Hi, CS.

I'm disappointed in the leadership of the party with which I'm still registered, tho. Hey, Mr. Dean - you forgot to mention the ponies you will be giving out.

Can't have a defense platform without promising ponies too ....
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-01 10:29  

#14  The notion that republicans are "stronger on national security" is and continues to be a "myth".

It's a "myth" in that Democrats believe it is mythical, but it in fact true.

I'm 35 years old. There was one day in my life when I could say Democrat politicians stood behind the defense of the United States. Then, on 9/12/2001, they went back to planning how they could screw the country to their advantage.

Vietnam? Hell no. Democrats cut off an ally and caused the murders of millions.

Islamic terrorism? Good lord, no. Carter was faced with a casus belli and he blinked. He and a Democrat Congress had so crippled the US military (out of revenge for not losing Vietnam sooner) he couldn't even pull off a raid.

Cold War? Hell no. Most Democrats were accomodationists, and a high percentage -- many still holding office -- believing the Soviets were the future.

Afghanistan? Hell no. The whole campaign was marked by Democrats declaring defeat on every stubbed toe.

Iraq? No. Do I need to explain this one?

The US in general? Hell no. Democrats routinely spit on this country, its people, and its traditions. Their strategy for my entire life has been to tell Americans how horrible things are, and how other Americans are trying to stab them in the back, to divide the country against itself and to make it clear to the rest of the world that America doesn't even like itself.

In 2004, the Democrats nominated for president a man who falsely accused the US of committing war crimes, who, bluntly, committed treason.

Democrats are the party of people who like the UN more than the US.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-01 10:28  

#13  CS, the ONLY poll numbers I believe are those coming from actual votes. Is Bush a polarizing President? Yes, but so was Bill Clinton and Clinton NEVER broke the 50% popular vote. I suspect that if a election were held today, Bush would still best Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or Dean with better than 50% of the popular vote and the electoral college. Hell right after the election Zogby had a poll that said “Most Americans feel the nation is heading in the wrong direction.” If that poll were a true reflection of the PresidentÂ’s job approval, President Kerry would be in office. Getting back on topic, I couldnÂ’t think of five people I served with that enjoyed having Clinton as the CINC. He didnÂ’t promote any great project except the donÂ’t ask/donÂ’t tell policy. If there is something I missed please tell me.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-03-01 10:25  

#12  "The Democrats have a better idea."

Heh!...Some people actually believe that load.
(#9: case in point)
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-03-01 10:10  

#11  Oh, so you're going to invade Waziristan? Capture Lahore? March on Islamabad. I knew you were nuts, Howie, but I didn't think you had those kind of stones ...

"We're not just going to march into Waziristan. We're going to Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi . . . and Kashmir and Kathmandu, . . . and we're going to Bandar Abbas and Qom and Esfahan and Tehran! . . . And we're going to Panmunjom and Sarfwon and Taeondon and Pyongyang. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeaaaaagggggghhhhh!!!"
Posted by: Mike   2006-03-01 10:01  

#10  This is the same old shit. They bitch and cry, but never once have I heard them say what they would do.
What's their plan???? It isn't enough to just say "we think you are a bunch of idiots", you have to have an alternate plan of attack.
Posted by: Unock Greatch1969   2006-03-01 09:45  

#9  Say what you want about Dean, but the fact remains that President Bush's poll numbers are in a free fall on job approval and support for the Iraq War. Even Congression Republicans are challenging and criticizing Bush on his recent performance.

The notion that republicans are "stronger on national security" is and continues to be a "myth".
Posted by: Common Sense   2006-03-01 09:23  

#8  And we're going to do all this without killing anyone except maybe Osama. Harsh language will be more than sufficient for our purposes.
Posted by: Matt   2006-03-01 09:13  

#7  "We haven't seen an administration this weak since the Clinton years!"
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-01 09:06  

#6  This is simply the re-emergence of a time-honored Democrat party theme. Last time you saw this was at the Demo convention when Kerry got the nod. The theme is: "WE are NOT a bunch of PUSSIES!"
Posted by: Spoter Unatle4689   2006-03-01 08:53  

#5  He's got a point about the Israeli boycott. Interesting possibilities for leverage on the UAE.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-03-01 04:13  

#4  Umm yeah whatever happened to dean's presidential bid??? ohhh yeah I remember...
Posted by: bgrebel   2006-03-01 01:39  

#3  This is their party ledearship on BDS PB. I saw Harry Reid on TV today. He was saying teh same pure B.S. just in a different way. The problem is there are people who believe this and the MSM is pushing it.
Posted by: SPoD   2006-03-01 01:09  

#2  Lawzy that is one dumb as dirt and dee-ranged induhvidual. How the fuck did he ever become a no-shit elected Governor?

I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that he was once sane, possessed some intelligence, and had rational mental processes. So what happened? *slaps forehead* Duh...

This is your brain on BDS.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-01 01:05  

#1  Wait a second here. I thought George W. McChimplerBurton and his shotgun-brandishing sidekick Chainey were unrepentant warmongers. Now you're bashing them for not bringing the hammer down on the North Koreans? Y'all need to get your story straight.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-03-01 01:04  

00:00