Just Why Democrats Are 'Dangerous' When It Comes To America's Defense

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=246237121883661

Posted 10/20/2006

Thomas Sowell, the distinguished Stanford scholar, wrote on this page a week ago that there's a difference between the major parties: "The Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous." We'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate on his second point.

We and our allies are in a serious global war against fanatical, determined Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America and the free world. Their stated objective is to kill all the Americans they can, eliminate Israel, control and enslave women, and in time overpower and rule with an iron fist nations from Spain to the Far East. They intensely hate our freedom and successful way of life.

While Democrats in Congress always assert they "support our troops," their political policies and actions have continually undermined our nation's fight to win the war on terror and defend America. Here is their national security record:

1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists' money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats' retreat and defeat plan.

Think that's bad? Here's the Democrats' national defense record for the last 40 years:

A. Democrat President Johnson misjudges the Gulf of Tonkin incident, pursues the Vietnam War until a liberal CBS TV announcer thinks we're losing and says we should quit. So we quit and lose. The victorious communists then kill 2 million innocent civilians.

B. Democrat President Jimmy Carter during the Cold War withdraws U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter doesn't like his human rights treatment of Soviet spies in prison. The shah is overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns, seizes power and creates an Islamic nation. Opponents are killed, the idea of suicide bombers is introduced to the PLO, and Iran's oil wealth is used to spawn and support Hezbollah, a terrorist militia that killed 241 Marines in a Beirut bombing and that lately attacked Israel. Iranian radicals storm our embassy, taking 52 American hostages for 444 days. Carter fails in an amateurish attempt to rescue them. Eight military personnel and eight aircraft are lost in a desert foul-up.

Democrat Carter, self-assured and well-meaning but dangerously naive, was responsible for bringing into power an Iranian Islamic regime that's now creating nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and blackmail the U.S. and Europe. Iran has further provided weapons and support to Shiite militia and death squads in Iraq and could provide nukes to al-Qaida, with which it has a working relationship.

After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

So Carter's glaring weakness in dealing with the communists and Iran leads directly to both the current terrorist nuclear threat of Iran and the birth of al-Qaida, a group of mass murderers that would never have been possible if the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev had not been emboldened to invade Afghanistan after seeing an inept, appeasing American president, Carter.

Carter's ongoing, worldwide damage to America's future national defense does not end there. In 1994, civilian Carter goes to North Korea and negotiates an agreement that President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright buy into. The North Koreans use our money and help to secretly spend the next six years in researching and building nukes. Deceived again by a worthless piece of paper, Carter becomes America's Neville Chamberlain.
These Democrat policies and actions were not only incompetent and ineffective in defending the U.S. They also proved to be highly dangerous, creating the greatest threats to America's future security — a radical Islamic Iran and a North Korea with nukes, either one of which could hand weapons off to al-Qaida killers. And Carter is still out there giving us advice.

Ronald Reagan inherited from Democrat mismanagement a rapidly expanding communist enemy, 12% inflation (highest in 34 years), 21% interest rates (highest since Abe Lincoln was president), a depleted military and a serious energy crisis. Reagan's motto was "peace through strength," not peace through retreat, weakness and accommodation.

He kicked communists out of Grenada and defeated them in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. He supported those fighting against communist regimes. He attacked Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who much later surrendered his nuclear weapons program after America's military captured the tyrant Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground.

For eight years congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought all of Reagan's defense and economic policies. They said he was dumb, stupid, too old and a warmonger who was going to start WWIII with the Soviet Union. Democrats were proved wrong on nearly every vital Reagan policy. His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic and technological boom, just as George Bush's broad tax cuts have done, creating millions of new jobs.
In the end, the Reagan-Bush administration defeated the 70-year-old Soviet Union, and communism disintegrated on the ash heap of history under Republican Reagan's relentless pressure and determination to build a missile defense system to make the Soviet nuclear arsenal obsolete.

The present terrorist threat to our security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s, after Democrat Clinton was elected in November 1992. In February 1993, terrorists bombed New York's World Trade Center. In October 1993 two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. In response, Clinton withdrew our forces.
In January 1995, Philippines police uncovered a plot to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean. In June 1996, Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi and wounding 372 others.

In February 1998, bin Laden declared "war on America," saying the murder of any American anywhere on the earth was the "individual duty" of every Muslim. In August 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. In October 2000, 17 U.S. sailors were killed when al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

According to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and head of the agency's bin Laden unit, the 9/11 Commission report confirms that the Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get the al-Qaida leader, but Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke or Clinton simply could not make the decision to act. The CIA knew where bin Laden was and the military had plans, but they were almost always called off at the last minute.
So when presented with 10 specific opportunities, Clinton's Democrat administration never took any action that was effective or produced any positive result. From Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s to the policies and actions they push today, Democrats haven't been just weak and ineffective in defending against America's enemies.

This year, two other forces are feverishly working to undermine this election and our war on terror. One force is made up of elite national media based mainly on the East Coast. On several occasions they have given our enemy vital defense secrets. They also disgracefully report and relentlessly repeat only bad news. Such dishonest journalism confuses and deliberately misleads the American public. The TV networks have lost 50% of their audience and still refuse to change their one-sided news coverage.

The other force is represented by terrorists who are desperately attacking as many people as possible in Iraq in the weeks leading up to our election. They believe they can intimidate us like they intimidated Spanish voters in the wake of the Madrid bombings and affect our congressional election in a way that will result in our quick withdrawal from Iraq. But quitters never win.

As difficult and complex as the war has been, America has a very strong economy — with over 95% of our population employed and 70% owning homes — plus freedom, opportunity and a standard of living that other countries can only envy.

We've also been protected against further terrorist attacks by a strong, competent and determined president.
 
:clap: Haha liberals exposed again. Good find Bonnie.


When are we going to get a President that has the balls to say all of these facts to the American people?
 
Politics is the art of getting people who aren't paying attention, to vote for you anyway. Due to this odd circumstance, part of the art is to find a way to give them information about what you have done and are doing, to persuade them to vote for you.

But in cases where your record can't stand up to scrutiny, or you believe they won't like what you have done, your techniques change. Either you give up and agree that they shouldn't vote for you after all, or you try to arrange that they DON'T become aware of what you have done in the past, while making rosy promises of future action. This is in hopes they will think you will do something different from what your (unnoticed) record shows.

U.S. Democrats have become masters of the latter technique. Their records of results during wartime, and in foreign relations in general, have been so abysmal for the last 40 years, that their best hope lies in never mentioning what they have done all that time, what the results were, and hoping nobody else points it out either.

Fortunately ther is a simple, straightforward method of defeating this disingenuousness: tell the truth. This article does so, clearly and concisely. We can count on Democrats and other leftists to either ignore what it says completely, or reply with vague "No, it isn't" generalities without backup or reference. Along, of course, with the usual attacks on the messenger. Anything but try to refute the message.
 
Bonnie - great find!

applause.gif
 
Sounds good until you examine all the exceptions and the clauses that determined those votes. Again... More fear mongering, no substance to back it up...
 
Sounds good until you examine all the exceptions and the clauses that determined those votes.

Enlighten us, please.

PseudoGhost said:
Again... More fear mongering,

Ah - is that the new term for "stark, unflinching appraisal of recent history"?

PseudoGhost said:
no substance to back it up...

Thank you for the best chuckle I've had all day! No, I think the article is a little TOO substantive for the tastes of those who would bury plain truth under empty rhetoric and glittering generalities. You want to hear some REAL fear-mongering? I give you the six most terrifying words in the English language:

Democrats in charge of national security.
 

No generalities dearie...Provide specific citations...voting records, etc...to prove these assertions.

<blockquote>1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists' money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats' retreat and defeat plan.</blockquote>

And the assertion that Democrats are somehow "dangerous" to America's defense is utter balderdash...Unles you have evidence, not merely op-ed cut and paste, to support that assertion. If so, please provide it.
 
A call to jump through hoops yet AGAIN.

No generalities dearie...Provide specific citations...voting records, etc...to prove these assertions.

And the assertion that Democrats are somehow "dangerous" to America's defense is utter balderdash...Unles you have evidence, not merely op-ed cut and paste, to support that assertion. If so, please provide it.

Why don't you do a search and find counter-evidence to dispute these claims then? Do you really think the voting record doesn't exist if you're not handed some link you find acceptable?
 
A call to jump through hoops yet AGAIN.

Relax, UAY. Some of these people are still insisting that Al Gore won the 2000 election, even after 1,362 recounts by every group and method and sampling selection imaginable.

It's basically a tactic designed to make conservatives waste time proving the earth is round, again and again, rather than addressing useful infomation and discussion.
 
No generalities dearie...Provide specific citations...voting records, etc...to prove these assertions.

<blockquote>1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists' money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats' retreat and defeat plan.</blockquote>

And the assertion that Democrats are somehow "dangerous" to America's defense is utter balderdash...Unles you have evidence, not merely op-ed cut and paste, to support that assertion. If so, please provide it.



Winning Terrorist Hearts
One of my progressive-liberal mentors, Iddybud, presented me with a challenge:

"What are your ideas about us winning over the Muslim world other than 1. bombing them into oblivion or 2.smothering them with "our way of life" at the point of a gun (when they do not wish to live in a Judeo-Christian society)?"

As much as I admire her wisdom, she's attacking a straw man. I do not want to bomb "The muslim world" into oblivion, nor do I want to force anyone to adapt my way of life at the point of gun, except for the Boy Scouts, Christians, smokers, pro-lifers, carnivores, homophobes, Uncle Toms, dittoheads, and SUV-owners. Shrub and his neocon warhawk buddies think the answer to terrorism is to kill the terrorists, but how can we make someone love us if they're DEAD? In order to win the hearts and minds of those who seek to bathe in our blood, we must learn to compromise. Compromise means bending a little bit, sacrificing something for the greater peace. And despite coming to the rescue of Muslims in Iraq, Bosnia, Kuwait, Somalia, and most recently in Iran, we just haven't really gone out of our way to prove our love.

Let's examine what the terrorists want from us, according to their own words:

Demand #1. Convert to Islam, or die.
Demand #2. Let us kill all the Joos.

Sure, these may seem like pretty reasonable demands on the surface. After all, they've been part of the official French anti-terrorism policy for years. However, America is secretly ran by Zionist Cabalists, and Christian Armageddonists who think Jesus will make a comeback in Israel. There's no way we're going to convince a nation populated by dogma-spewing, fundamentalist wackos to convert to Islam.

But what if we met them half way? What if say, 50% of Americans either convert to Islam or commit suicide, and we throw in 50% of the Joos for good measure? It would show the Religion of Peace that we're willing to take that extra little baby step towards friendship. Unfortunately, I doubt the mullahs will settle for that. We may have to go as high as 70 or 80 percent on both of the demands, just to prove our sincerity.

One may ask: How do we get a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation to give up their religious beliefs? The same way we get them to give up smoking; we make it so expensive and inconvenient that they simply quit. We start by designating all public places as "Judeo-Christian prayer-free zones", including churches. If anyone wants to talk to either Jesus or Yahweh, they'll have to do it outside in the snow with the smokers. Then we place an exhorbitant tax on praying, but offer an exemption if it's done on a rug, facing towards Mecca. These measures may seem extreme, but Christians in Iraq got used to it, and now live in total peace and harmony with their Muslim masters.

So whaddya say, America? Are you ready to step up to the plate and hit a home run for world peace? Or do you want to continue to alienate the Muslim world with your twisted, Judeo-Christian values and your snotty famine relief? Do you want a war without end, wrapped in duct tape and sprinkled with orange alerts, or do you want a utopian shangrila, where giant mushrooms sing lullabies, and candy unicorns leap happily over gumdrop rainbows?

The decision is yours.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/terrorism/index.html
 
No generalities dearie...Provide specific citations...voting records, etc...to prove these assertions.

<blockquote>1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists' money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats' retreat and defeat plan.</blockquote>

And the assertion that Democrats are somehow "dangerous" to America's defense is utter balderdash...Unles you have evidence, not merely op-ed cut and paste, to support that assertion. If so, please provide it.

The voting records of Democrats speak to all that...Not my assertions.... merely facts.

Tell me something Bully just what exactly is the Democrat strategy for winning in Iraq and the WOT??? Because it's only a few days till elections and Im still waiting for something more substantive than the constant Democrat rantings on Foley.............
 
The voting records of Democrats speak to all that...Not my assertions.... merely facts.

Tell me something Bully just what exactly is the Democrat strategy for winning in Iraq and the WOT??? Because it's only a few days till elections and Im still waiting for something more substantive than the constant Democrat rantings on Foley.............

Well, ya see... their plan is, "I'm not Bush!"

This of course means only that, "I'm not Bush so I have no plan at all... but heck... I'm not Bush..."

And then they plan on, "I'm not Bush" some more...

what do you think of that?
 
Well, ya see... their plan is, "I'm not Bush!"

This of course means only that, "I'm not Bush so I have no plan at all... but heck... I'm not Bush..."

And then they plan on, "I'm not Bush" some more...

what do you think of that?

Yes thats right, we have no plan, but hey afterall we're not Bush, we just want to ride on Air Force One someday soon!!!
I understand you can live on Air force One for months after a nuclear terrorist attack, and even play video games:thup:
 

Forum List

Back
Top