Top 9 reasons a Dem president couldn't handle the war against terrorists

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Little-Acorn, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Online

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,366
    Thanks Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,862
    An excellent article, on one of the most pressing issues of our time. This alone would serve to demonstrate Democrat unfitness for office, even if they weren't trying to expand government control, raise taxes, and socialize the economy.

    --------------------------------------------

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...Hawkins&dt=02/23/2007&page=full&comments=true

    The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism

    by John Hawkins
    Friday, February 23, 2007

    Many people assume that the Democrats' opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you've got to understand that the 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.
     
  2. CTRLALTDEL
    Offline

    CTRLALTDEL Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +40
    And Bush has done an exceptional job so far. :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall:
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    so because you belive Bush has done an exceptional job so far that means the dems will.............
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    You answer none of the points. While you don't 'copy and paste' probably because you have a problem finding relevant material, you have the gaul to criticise those that do. You just tear down and seemingly have zero to add to any discussion. Oh you do hitch onto someone like MM that does have a point or two to make once in awhile. ;) To MM.
     
  5. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    In message board terms, isn't that basically the definition of a troll?

    (Guess I'm guilty now too, but let's just see what happens for the fun of it.)
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    ;)
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    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.

    lie. Democrats do not insist on treating terrorism as strictly a law enforcement issue....we just do no t believe that shocking, awing, invading, conquering, and occupying countries who had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked us is all that fucking smart.
    tation 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."
    lie. democrats have no desire to weaken America.... only cause her to act more intelligently. We believe being strong AND smart is better than just being strong.
    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."
    bullshit. democrats are willing to fight terrorism. We just believe that putting 150K Americans in the middle of an age old fight between sunnis and shiites in Iraq where NONE of them had fuck-all to do with 9/11 but all of them see us as Christian infidel targets is a dumbass way to fight the war on terror. Democrats in Connecticut felt that way and sent Joe - and Bush - a message. We were for Afghanistan because it made sense. That doesn't mean we hang around for every boneheaded move the chimp and his koolaid soaked entourage wants to make from there on after.
    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.

    bullshit. we take terrorism just as seriously as republicans do... moreso, in fact. We know that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to the war on terror...and that issue is way more important to us than those social issues you raise....as if the religious right isn't more concerned with stopping gay marriage and stopping a woman's right to chose than THEY are about 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.

    Bullshit. It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I spent a quarter of a century in the Navy being used in exactly that manner. Sometimes the suits in DC send us on missions that make sense...sometimes they don't. Now that I am retired, I am free to say that many of the missions I was sent on were fucking stupid.... and the stupid ones came from both parties....Iraq is a stupid one from the republicans...and it is the most stupid one in my lifetime.
    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.
    so? No democrat has ever suggested we cut off our nuts and give them to the UN. If the UN was such a corrupt and ineffective and unimportant organization, why was the fact that Saddam had violated some of the resolutions from that corrupt, ineffective and unimportant organization such a big fucking deal that we had to send 150k Americans into the jaws of hell to uphold those same resolutions?
    7) The Democrats are overly concerned with "international opinion," AKA "European opinion."

    bullshit. democrats know that if we want to win any war against islamic extremism, that we will need the assistance of our allies. Going to war against a bunch of people in Iraq who were not at war with us is the most boneheaded thing we have ever done as a country and we did it while spitting in the eye of most of our long term allies. democrats know that was dumb.


    8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system.

    no. We just want justice for all. If the folks at Gitmo are guilty of crimes against America, let's try them with whatever judicial system provides justice and closure...holding them for years on end without any any form of due process is not the way our founding fathers would have wanted us to treat individuals we have not even proven were our enemies.
    9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President.

    more bullshit. The ONLY "intelligence program" that democrats object to is wiretapping the phones of American citizens without a warrant. Especially with the extraordinarily lax requirements of FISA that allow our intelligence communities to place a wiretap on a US citizen without a warrant and take 72 hours to bring the facts to a FISA judge who is always available 24/7. To allow warrantless wiretapping by our government to listen in on calls that the government thinks might be related to terrorism INVITES ANDF AUTHORIZES AND ENCOURAGES the government to put wiretaps on anybody for anything...and if we don't require a warrant, how the fuck will we EVER know they are doing it for whatever reasons they see fit in the future?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    so what do you believe in, I mean the democrats.

    that sounds great, how? So we should be weaker and smarter?
    so you agree that Joe should have lost, but didn't. Why did Afghanistan make sense? It was taken over by stronger invaders, the Taliban, why should the Afghanis have to pay?
    Show that the stopping of gay marriage and pro-choice is more important to the right than WOT. Site something. As for the left, see Murtha.
    Must agree and no further comment.
    Well I would turn your attention to most of your own posts. Over and over again, in spite of all the resolutions and the cease fire, you still blame the US for acting unilaterally. Go figure.
    so the Europeans aka French/Germans in bed with Oil for Food, you want to kowtow to?
    while forcing the government to either drop charges or have secrets revealed. Hobson's choice.
    Wow, considering many of these never involved an 'American citizen' and they still brought 72 hour rule into effect, wow, how draconian. :rolleyes:
     
  9. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    so what do you believe in, I mean the democrats.

    a coordinated response on many planes.... militarily when appropriate.... law enforcement .... intelligence.... coordination with allies.... not merely shock/awe/invade/conquer/occupy

    that sounds great, how? So we should be weaker and smarter?

    don't be purposely obtuse. I never suggested that. I suggest we be strong AND smart. wouldn't it have been awesome if Bush had thought of that?

    so you agree that Joe should have lost, but didn't.
    Why did Afghanistan make sense? It was taken over by stronger invaders, the Taliban, why should the Afghanis have to pay?

    two points: 1. quit putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Joe should not have lost...he SHOULD have lost because Iraq is a stupid counterproductive war and democrats know it...and Joe continues to support it. and 2. Since when did the Taliban invade Afghanistan. They are indiginous people. The invasion of Afghanistan made sense because the Taliban was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda....and our invasion should have remained focused on finding OBL and all his henchmen and bringing them to justice....not on regime change at the expense of missing the one guy we really went in to get

    Show that the stopping of gay marriage and pro-choice is more important to the right than WOT. Site something. As for the left, see Murtha.

    are you suggesting that all of the gay marriage ballot initiatives that were on the ballot in '06 were not proof enough? ANd Murtha has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion, what does "see Murtha" have to do with anything?

    Well I would turn your attention to most of your own posts. Over and over again, in spite of all the resolutions and the cease fire, you still blame the US for acting unilaterally. Go figure.

    you can't have it both ways...the UN cannot be this horrific organization that we absolutely MUST get the hell our of on one hand and then, on the other an organization so relevant that we are willing to go to war to defend their security council resolutions even when that selfsame security council does NOT think that going to war to do that is a good idea Take your pick and then stay there

    so the Europeans aka French/Germans in bed with Oil for Food, you want to kowtow to? while forcing the government to either drop charges or have secrets revealed. Hobson's choice.

    don't put words in my mouth...I NEVER said we should EVER "kowtow" to anybody. Do you really think that the only other option to telling our allies to fuck off is "kowtowing"to them? Is the world really that simplistic to you? I doubt that.

    Wow, considering many of these never involved an 'American citizen' and they still brought 72 hour rule into effect, wow, how draconian.

    then I have no problem with it.... if the president wants to use FISA, I am all for it. If he wants to allow the executive branch to wiretap without warrant, I do not trust him or government in general to wiretap only non-US citizens or then only for the purpose of fighting the war on terror. The entire concepts of warrants for searches (and wiretaps ARE searches) is part of our freakin' constitution. I am not about to toss out our constitution and let big brother listen to whoever it wants whenever it wants with no oversight.... you remember the Ben Franklin quote, which I can only paraphrase without googling...."He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither"
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    can you edit this for readability? (Is that a word?)
     

Share This Page