Posted on 01/30/2004 5:51:44 AM PST by beaureguard
After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.
The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.
So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.
I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.
And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.
And this comment betrays a lack of understanding of how this war is being waged.
Which matters only if you are self-focused, rather than focused on the protection of our country as a whole.
As I said, you are confusing two issues. The transition to a new Iraq government, with what you said (erroneously) would be the total and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, and by inference, complete withdrawal of U.S. involvement in that region.
Further, you instructed us to "take the WOT off the table" as far as the upcoming elections are concerned, stating it would be wrapped up. That is absurd. Then you demonstrate a lack of understanding of all the various aspects of the war. What, for instance, would be done with the prisoners at Gitmo? You blithely state bin Laden will be swept up easily and in you mind that's that.
The WOT remains on the table when one is considering our upcoming presidential election.
I disagree. IMO, the WOT is gonna take some 20yrs.
Do you remember what President Bush has said all along about this being a different kind of war and that there will be aspects of this war that we'll never know about?
Also, he said that some fronts in the WOT will not be militarily fought.
There will be special ops operations, I'm sure, that we'll never know about.
As to military operations in countries other than Afghanistan and Iraq, time will tell, but I'm sure as long as we have a strong CiC, we'll go where necessary and do what we have to do to defeat the terrorists who would try to destroy America.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Hank
US troops to leave Iraq once new Iraqi authority can guarantee security: Abizaid The US troops currently occupying Iraq will leave the war-torn country once the newly-installed Iraqi transitional authority can take over security itself in all aspects, US Central Command Chief Gen. John Abizaid said in Baghdad on Tuesday.
The US troops currently occupying Iraq will leave the war-torn country once the newly-installed Iraqi transitional authority can take over security itself in all aspects, US Central Command Chief Gen. John Abizaid said in Baghdad on Tuesday.
"The American military presence in Iraq will no longer be needed at the point where the Iraqi government assumes responsibility for its external and internal security," Abizaid told a joint press conference with US civil administrator Paul Bremer.
"It doesn't mean we will rush out. It means that we will, in a careful and in a certain manner, train, provide for Iraqi securityforces to be responsible," he added.
But the general shunned the question about the possibility of maintaining US military bases in Iraq after an expected power handover next summer.
Earlier reports said the US army could set up four bases acrossIraq, namely in the capital city of Baghdad, Mosul in the north, Nasiriya in central south and Basra in the south.
The US-installed Iraqi Governing Council has unveiled and presented to the UN Security Council a new political transformation blueprint, which sees the end of occupation by Junenext year.
Yes, I can see some in our political ellite trying to turn this into a forever war against Eurasia or Eastasia. However, Boortz is dead on with this one.
But, to your other point:
That being said, we are all far more likely to be killed in a car accident, to be struck by an asteroid or to be in a plane crash than to be killed by a terrorist.
I think your statement is too narrowly focused. The mission of Al Qaeda is not just to kill people. They want to destroy our way of life, our strength. The Twin Towers were a symbol of our financial strength. What happened? It almost brought our economy to it's knees. Then they struck the Pentagon, a symbol of our military strength. Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Samolia. Unanswered attacks allowed them to believe we had no military might. They wanted to prove their hypothesis. oops.
I have no doubt they are waiting for the next RAT President to resume their attacks.
He used to be a libertarian.
Iraq security forces fall short of requirements, says Bremer
MOSUL: US overseer Paul Bremer on Tuesday made a snap inspection of Iraq’s newly created security forces and declared them far from capable of maintaining stability in the violence-ravaged nation.
Bremer toured two training facilities near the northern town of Mosul where recruits of the paramilitary Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC) are being put through their paces, overseen by US 101st Airborne Division troops.
The head of the US-led coalition in Iraq was quick to praise the ICDC, created to work alongside a new Iraqi army and police force, but he stressed that without an ongoing US military presence rebels could gain the upper hand.
“Iraq will not be capable of meeting the security threat they are likely to face in July without continued assistance from other countries,” Bremer told reporters at Camp Claiborne, on the outskirts of Mosul. Under a November 15 power-transfer agreement, sovereignty is due to be handed to a transitional Iraqi government by June 30, though there is mounting pressure for direct elections, so far rejected by Washington.
The coalition has maintained that early elections cannot be held, citing the lack of a proper census or voter register and the ongoing insecurity. On Monday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced he was sending a team to Iraq to study the viability of staging elections.
Asked about the chance of altering the handover plans, Bremer said: “We’re fine with November 15.” Bremer said that although the handover date remains fixed, there was no deadline for the full withdrawal of US troops, despite the abilities of the ICDC and other forces. —AFP
END
I don't pretend to be a military strategist, so your demands that I and others outline "where we go next" is silly. I've indicated several times now that this war is waged differently than plainly conventional means, and there are several aspects that will need the attention of the Bush administration, and cannot be entrusted to the dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.