Posted on 08/24/2006 8:04:30 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Sixty percent of Americans, according to recent polls, consider Iraq a mistake. Given the unpopularity of the war, Democrats expect to capture one, if not both, chambers of Congress this fall. Assuming this happens and I still don't believe so will Americans be better off?
Sure, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the Democratic primary. But look at Lamont's "strategy" for the war in Iraq. He calls for a "phased pullout" of troops. A "phased pullout"?
Sen. Lieberman, who disagrees with President Bush on virtually every domestic issue, understands the stakes in Iraq, even if his party members fail to. "I am convinced," wrote Lieberman, "almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if [U.S.] forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country."
During the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah (and Lebanon and Syria and Iran), we justly criticized the Lebanese government for the lack of will or ability to police its southern border. Yet many Democrats want us to leave Iraq and abandon the Iraqi military and police that show the will, if not the ability so far, to police and protect their own country.
Lamont's "phased pullout" would send yet another signal to the enemies to simply wait us out. Osama bin Laden considers America impatient, lacking resolve and unwilling to sacrifice. Recall that our hasty pullout from Vietnam, and subsequent failure to abide by promises made to the South Vietnamese, resulted in a bloodbath in Southeast Asia that left 3 million or more dead.
For insight into the Democrats' brand of appeasement foreign policy, look no further than former President Jimmy Carter. Just a few months into his presidency, he urged Americans to reconsider our "inordinate fear of communism." Carter kissed then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek. Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan.
Carter, a staunch Bush critic, helped to usher in the "Iranian Revolution" of 1979 by leaning on the Shah of Iran to "release political prisoners." To show their gratitude, Iranians seized 90 hostages at the U.S. Embassy, holding 52 of them for 444 days, before releasing them minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. At the time of the hostage crisis, Carter sent what some called a believer-to-believer letter in longhand to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The letter praised the ayatollah as a "man of God."
The other major Democrat line of attack accuses the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility. This is their strongest and most persuasive argument. For it is true that this president, with the approval of the Republican-run legislature, ran up bills at a rate faster than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Even if we exclude the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security and Katrina relief, the Republican Party turned its back on their alleged "limited government" philosophy.
But the Democrats' primary criticism is to call Republicans too stingy. About the monstrous expansion of Medicare with the prescription bill for seniors, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Because the administration and the Republican leadership refused to provide the funds needed for an adequate drug benefit, more and more seniors are facing the ridiculous 'donut hole.' That's the huge gap which leaves enrollees with major out-of-pocket costs."
About No Child Left Behind, another unwarranted expansion of the federal government in education, Democrats, along with the National Education Association, call it insufficiently funded. "The law requires Washington to pay for it," said NEA President Reg Weaver, "and the fact is that Washington is not keeping that promise. As a result, our parents' tax dollars are getting steered away from the classroom and going toward boosting the profits of testing companies, instead of going toward their children's education."
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and other House Democrats recently released a six-pronged "New Direction for America" agenda for change: Real security and immediate phased pullout in Iraq; higher minimum wage; more affordable college; energy independence and lower gas prices; affordable health care; and something called "Retirement Security and Dignity," which calls for shoring up private pensions.
Notice anything missing? Not one word about North Korea. Not one word about Iran. And virtually every one of the six Democrat initiatives requires greater federal government intrusion, higher taxes and contempt for the private sector to compete and innovate. In short, "fiscal irresponsibility."
Americans, despite our uneasiness with the war in Iraq, nevertheless realize the consequences in the war against Islamofascism of an abrupt abandonment. And the next time you hear a Democrat attack Republicans for "reckless spending," ask the following question: "Aside from defense, where should government cut back?"
The silence will be deafening.
You mean this one:
What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic Gods in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.
Carter wasnt finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?
This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi
Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade. (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)
Held out as a celebration of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.
Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.
To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:
We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there
But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!
How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.
But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.
But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carters verbal exploits include:
*Regarding President Ronald Reagans talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : I have always thought Star Wars was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity
*Regarding President George H.W. Bushs preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation. Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.
*Regarding Bushs Axis of Evil comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement
it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.
It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.
There are numerous examples of former president Carters innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.
If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be ineffectual, for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.
Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.
Or maybe this one (she thinks):
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.
According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."
Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.
Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....
You mean this one:
What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic Gods in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.
Carter wasnt finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?
This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi
Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade. (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)
Held out as a celebration of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.
Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.
To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:
We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there
But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!
How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.
But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.
But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carters verbal exploits include:
*Regarding President Ronald Reagans talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : I have always thought Star Wars was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity
*Regarding President George H.W. Bushs preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation. Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.
*Regarding Bushs Axis of Evil comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement
it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.
It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.
There are numerous examples of former president Carters innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.
If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be ineffectual, for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.
Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.
Or maybe this one (she thinks):
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.
According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."
Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.
Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....
DEMOCRATS: WEAK ON DEFENSE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted To Cut Intelligence Funding, Even After September 11th:
In 2003, 33 SENATE Democrats Voted To Withhold $50 Million In Intelligence Funding. (H.R. 2658, CQ Vote #287: Motion Agreed To 62-34: R 51-0; D 11-33; I 0-1, 7/17/03)
In 2003, 44 SENATE Democrats Supported An Amendment That Would Have Transferred $300 Million Away From Intelligence Activities. (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 7/23/03)
In 1996, 154 House Democrats Voted To Reduce The Total Amount Authorized By The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization By 4.9 Percent. (H.R. 3259, CQ Vote #187: Rejected 192-235: R 37-193; D 154-42; I 1-0, 5/22/96)
In 1995, 40 SENATE Democrats Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95)
In 1993, 120 House Democrats Voted To Cut Intelligence By $500 Million. (H.R. 2330, CQ Vote #393: Rejected: 134-299: R 13-159; D 120-14; I 1-0, 8/4/93)
In 1989, 31 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Appropriations For Intelligence And Intelligence-Related Activities Of The U.S. Government For The CIA And Related Agencies. (H.R. 2748, CQ Vote #288: Passed 369-31: R 161-8; D 208-23, 10/12/89)
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR
|
- |
<-------------- |
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.