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

Encompassed in this group are the pacifists, greater social program spending and less military spending. You can argue the last point all you want, but Clinton did reduce military spending significantly while in office. From conversations with you, you come as more of a JFK democrat and I just don't think that's where your party is anymore.

you tend to gloss over the fact that secretary of defense Dick Cheney oversaw a larger reduction in defense spending than Clinton instituted.
 
I don't know how to respond. I think that my party is mischaracterized in the media and on the county democratic committee here in Maine on which I sit, I am certainly one of the more liberal members. I know that both democratic congressmen from Maine - both of whom I know quite well - are both with me on these critical foreign policy issues and, on many social issues, they are further to the right than I am.

I think Bern is right. You are to your party, what I am †o the Republicans. Way too aware. We are anomalies, we fit nowhere.
 
I don't know how to respond. I think that my party is mischaracterized in the media and on the county democratic committee here in Maine on which I sit, I am certainly one of the more liberal members. I know that both democratic congressmen from Maine - both of whom I know quite well - are both with me on these critical foreign policy issues and, on many social issues, they are further to the right than I am.

I'm not sure how to respond either other than I don't think you're as liberal as you think. Primarily because you come off as a fairly objective person. That and liberalism just don't go together, granted I know very little about any other stances you have on issues. All I know is it was easier for me to figure some things out for myself when I seperated the ideology from the party. I think demcratic party is a hair farther to the right than liberal ideology and the Repblican party is farther to the left than conservative ideology.

Your congressmen friends could probably garner a lot more support if they phrased their arguments like you do with their non-binding resolution
 
I'm not sure how to respond either other than I don't think you're as liberal as you think. Primarily because you come off as a fairly objective person. That and liberalism just don't go together, granted I know very little about any other stances you have on issues. All I know is it was easier for me to figure some things out for myself when I seperated the ideology from the party. I think demcratic party is a hair farther to the right than liberal ideology and the Repblican party is farther to the left than conservative ideology.

Your congressmen friends could probably garner a lot more support if they phrased their arguments like you do with their non-binding resolution

Now that makes two of us, that while not agreeing with MM, agree that he is reasonable. It's his turn to stand up and say where we may be right, though limited those occassions may be. ;)
 
I'm not sure how to respond either other than I don't think you're as liberal as you think. Primarily because you come off as a fairly objective person. That and liberalism just don't go together, granted I know very little about any other stances you have on issues. All I know is it was easier for me to figure some things out for myself when I seperated the ideology from the party. I think demcratic party is a hair farther to the right than liberal ideology and the Repblican party is farther to the left than conservative ideology.

Your congressmen friends could probably garner a lot more support if they phrased their arguments like you do with their non-binding resolution

well.... first off, let me say that I am honestly flattered....next.... my positions: I am reluctantly pro-choice - hating abortion but hating the thought of legislatures filled with men writing laws that allow government to intrude deep within a woman's body if not her soul....I am reluctantly pro-affirmative action - seeing the need for it in American business and hoping and dreaming of the day when, just like Martin said, we will all judge one another by the content of our character and not the color of our skin....but knowing that I am old enough to remember the events in Philadephia Mississippi....I am pro-environment and believe that american business can find ways to be profitable and green at the same time... I am very pro-education. I think that education is the great equalizer... it offers children from all walks of life the chance to have a better life than their parents.... I am for a progressive tax code....I think that the very wealthy of America can afford to pay more. I do not buy this idea that a tax code that is only mildly more progressive than the one in place now, and no different than under Clinton - and one that is WAY less progressive than was in place in my youth, will somehow stifle ingenuity and venture capitalism because it has never done so before.... I think that some bare minimum level of health care is something we can afford to give all our citizens and that by doing so, we will save money and create a healthier, more productive society.

I could go on, but that gives you an idea ...
 
I think that what is more important than any particular tenet of conservative thought that I may or may not find reasonable is my own belief - borne of personal experience - that there are good and decent people on both sides of the political spectrum that serve in government at all levels... and that when they come together and meet in the middle, they can and DO do the people's business with honor and with good sense.
 
I think that what is more important than any particular tenet of conservative thought that I may or may not find reasonable is my own belief - borne of personal experience - that there are good and decent people on both sides of the political spectrum that serve in government at all levels... and that when they come together and meet in the middle, they can and DO do the people's business with honor and with good sense.

and there are good and decent people of many persuasions, that will vote in the coming elections. Some may be anti-Iraq war, others pro, but in any case, all have the best intentions for the US.
 
and there are good and decent people of many persuasions, that will vote in the coming elections. Some may be anti-Iraq war, others pro, but in any case, all have the best intentions for the US.

I do not doubt that for a moment....

I may happen to believe that those who are pro-Iraq war are MISGUIDED, but I would never suggest that they were not well meaning.
 
I do not doubt that for a moment....

I may happen to believe that those who are pro-Iraq war are MISGUIDED, but I would never suggest that they were not well meaning.

and vice versa, no matter how strongly I think they may be harming the cause, I think in most cases, they are assuming it's for the best.
 
and vice versa, no matter how strongly I think they may be harming the cause, I think in most cases, they are assuming it's for the best.


bingo...and if you and I were to chose to serve in our state legislatures or even in COngress.... we would be the kind of folks that come to the middle with respect for one another and find meaningful compromise.
 
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.

I think the real question here is why such obviously Communist propoganda is even being debated. The anti-Americanism evident in this piece is staggering.
 
1)

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?


Talk about bullshit. Thats just an excuse to oppose it and you know it. When was the last time you used a corded landline? Wireless phones are not secure. I even occasionally get my neighbors phone conversations on my phone. PHONEY
 
1)
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.
[?


You know what farthead, explain why the dems voted for the war at the start then.
 
A majority of both crime and Terrorism occur because of the social and cultural conditions. We are trying to achieve a cultural objective, not a military objective. We are in Iraq to try to keep the country somewhat stable until the millenniums of cultural hatred quickly fades away.

wow, I thought that BS concept went out with Disco and lava lamps. You cant be serious can you?

However, saying "...because of the social and cultural conditions..." is so vague its meaningless.
 
wow, I thought that BS concept went out with Disco and lava lamps. You cant be serious can you?

However, saying "...because of the social and cultural conditions..." is so vague its meaningless.

Well there are a lot of inputs into Terrorism. If you want more specifics, there is poverty, low levels of education, the religious conflict which has been going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the blind desire for revenge against the Sunnis, since they were in power with Saddam. All of these factors contribute to local social disorder, is another factor in the creation of Terrorism.
 
Talk about bullshit. Thats just an excuse to oppose it and you know it. When was the last time you used a corded landline? Wireless phones are not secure. I even occasionally get my neighbors phone conversations on my phone. PHONEY


It has nothing to do with whether or not it is a land line or not....it has to do with an expectation of privacy...and if you allow the government to ignore the constitutional protections of our freedoms by deciding to listen in on phone conversations of citizens because of terrorism, what is to stop them from then deciding to listen in to phone conversations of citizens who support abortion rights...or the citizens who are organizing for gay rights or environmental issues. Ben Franklin's words do not become moot simply because we have better technology. The government should not be listening in on my phone conversations unless they can show a judge that there is cause to do so. period.
 
wow, I thought that BS concept went out with Disco and lava lamps. You cant be serious can you?

However, saying "...because of the social and cultural conditions..." is so vague its meaningless.

the causes of islamic extremism ARE vague and shadowy and difficult for westerners to get our arms around. That does not mean that we should throw up our hands and just reduce it down to "they hate us for our freedoms" or other such meaningless babble. There are, in fact, a whole spectrum of socio-economic and cultural factors that create an islamic extremist out of a young muslim. If we want to truly address this problem and try tl minimize it or "cure" it, we have to find a more innovative and multi-layered approach than simply killing them. If we truly want to get muslims to want to stop killing us and the method we chose to do that is killing muslims, we had better be prepared to kill every last one of them....because every muslim we kill helps to radicalize another and another. We will create more enemies faster than we can kill them.
 
the causes of islamic extremism ARE vague and shadowy and difficult for westerners to get our arms around. That does not mean that we should throw up our hands and just reduce it down to "they hate us for our freedoms" or other such meaningless babble. There are, in fact, a whole spectrum of socio-economic and cultural factors that create an islamic extremist out of a young muslim. If we want to truly address this problem and try tl minimize it or "cure" it, we have to find a more innovative and multi-layered approach than simply killing them. If we truly want to get muslims to want to stop killing us and the method we chose to do that is killing muslims, we had better be prepared to kill every last one of them....because every muslim we kill helps to radicalize another and another. We will create more enemies faster than we can kill them.

Muslim terrorists believe they will be with Allah someday

The US military is happy to arrange the intorduction
 
It has nothing to do with whether or not it is a land line or not....it has to do with an expectation of privacy..
I ;just explained to you why you have NO privacy on any phones you use. By your own self volition, you are a farthead, arent you.

..
and if you allow the government to ignore the constitutional protections of our freedoms by deciding to listen in on phone conversations of citizens because of terrorism,.
Please show me one example of phone conversations being listened into, of American citizens, "because" of terrorism. And DONT include any conversations that include talking with a known terrorist, or having a discussion about plans for terrorism.
what is to stop them from then deciding to listen in to phone conversations of citizens who support abortion rights...
well, abortion is legal. And what stops them now? how is allowing them to listen to conversations to stop terrorists going to stop, or help them to be allowed to listen to abortion calls? Its a red herring, and the general public knows you guys are just a bunch of whiny ass fartheads who dont really care if your calls are listened in on, but are just finding ANYTHING you can to complain about Bush, if you can bring him down with something else, you can quit rooting for us to not win in Iraq.
.or the citizens who are organizing for gay rights or environmental issues. Ben Franklin's words do not become moot simply because we have better technology. The government should not be listening in on my phone conversations unless they can show a judge that there is cause to do so. period.
TRUSY ME, they wont be listening in on yours
gays dont have rights??
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top