Posted on 11/16/2005 7:30:38 AM PST by billorites
It's just like 1964 when that book came out, only this time the Democrats are sleeping with the Muslims instead of the communists. Someday the Democrats, Columbus-like, will "discover" America and become patriots. Someday, maybe, but until then we'll need to keep some rope on hand.
Why won't the Senate republicans stand up and do SOMETHING about this?? I just do not get it.....!!
I have long thought Rockefeller is the most dangerous man in America*, alternating with McLame who has so many people fooled as to his true nature.
*Now that beelzebubba is no longer in position to give away nuclear secrets etc.
"The members of the Senate have way too much class and dignity to slam members of the opposition.....except for the Dimocrats, of course!"
Setting their pretenses (and your probable sarcasm) aside, the Republicans are, in fact, afraid to speak in this manner, and, as you point out, the Democrats are not.
To be fair, the reason is that if a Republican spoke out like this, he or she would be subjected to a 360° attack by the media. Traditionally, politicians have tried to avoid such attacks as a matter of course in the process of conducting politics, because such attacks cost votes.
As I see it, two things are needed. First, we need more Republican Senators with thicker skins. Second, we need some conservative media.
"Now the dems put themselves out on the national security
limb. It is high time the President sawed it off."
There is an element of truth in what you are saying. However, there's another side to it. In fact, the president's current strategy in Iraq is not moving fast enough toward control by the Iraqi military of most Iraqi cities.
The goal of getting Iraq to be "relatively quiet" before the Iraqi army takes over is, in my opinion, a false one. Equally false is the goal of bringing the Iraqi army into the relatively same functionality as the American army.
Rather, what we need to do is push the media out of Iraq, provide heavier armament to the Iraqi army (M1 tanks, artillery, A-10s), and let the Iraqi army start to take over significant areas of Iraq---handling it anyway, they need to do it. I realize this is unrealistic, because it would result in civilian casualties. However, it would solve the problem, and the Iraqis would not be doing anything worse than what any of the other Arab governments do.
Once the US forces got out of the central part of the country, away from most of the Iraqi civilians, and away from almost all sources of US casualties, I believe the US forces would be able to stay indefinitely on the periphery of Iraq sealing the borders and preventing invasion from the outside.
If we drift on this current way, I am afraid that things will be much the same three years from now, Hillary will become president, and the US will pull out of Iraq, completely and abruptly. In that case, I believe, a government hostile to the United States, not democratic at all, and sympathetic to terrorism is sure to take over.
From this perspective, I welcome the recent Senate resolution.
IIRC there is satellite imagery of major movements of ... something ... into Syria, I believe.
Someone with better sources and 'puter skills than I should try to correlate Rockefeller's solo trip with the movement of stuff.
Why would this man, a U.S. Senator, do this? If he is not smart enough to think it up on his own ... who is/was his master?
Hey great post. Never heard of the Logan Act before.
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.