Posted on 08/27/2006 9:38:13 PM PDT by jdm
As the November election approaches and Democrats from John Murtha to John Kerry to Howard Dean to Ned Lamont claim that the Bush administration’s policies to combat terrorism and to conduct the war in Iraq have failed, we still don’t know what exactly the Democrats would do. While Democrats constantly claim that the administration doesn’t have “a plan,” it doesn’t appear that they have a plan either. Maybe theirs is a “secret” plan.
As a regular viewer of the O’Reilly Factor, I’ve watched time and time again as Bill O’Reilly has asked Democratic strategists, operatives and politicians just what, specifically, they would do to protect Americans and stop the spread of Islamic terrorism. Invariably, the answer begins with, “In the last five years, the Bush administration has failed …”
Yes, we all understand that the Democrats believe that the Bush administration has failed. But what we all really want to know is just what would the Democrats do? I don’t care what they think of Bush’s policies, I want to know what their policies are.
Ann Coulter’s recent column [1], “What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?” summed up the Democrats’ plan – do the opposite of Bush.
Coulter quoted the aforementioned Howard Dean saying that the war in Iraq is “hampering our ability to fight the real war on terror.” My question is then where would we be fighting the war on terrorism if not in Iraq?
Iran and Syria are sending terrorists into Iraq and we are fighting them there. Would Dean prefer that we turn over Iraq to Iran and then fight those terrorists somewhere else? Just where would Dean and the Democrats prefer to wage the war on terrorism? Lebanon? Syria? New York? Maybe an invasion of Iran is included in the Democrats’ secret plan for winning the war on terrorism?
Democrats wailed that the Bush administration could have and should have prevented the attacks of 9/11. That makes one wonder just how would the United States prevent such as attack if not for laws such as the Patriot Act and programs such as the NSA wiretapping program that the Democrats oppose. (Harry Reid rejoiced when “we killed the Patriot Act”). Do the Democrats have better ideas? Maybe the Democrats expect terrorists to turn themselves in.
Democrats don’t want to hold captured terrorist “soldiers” at Guantanamo and want to give terrorists constitutional rights. How does not detaining enemy soldiers fit into the Democrats’ plan? Do they favor a catch-and-release program in the war on terrorism? I want to know.
The Democrats put their undying faith in Kofi Annan and the United Nations and since the Bush administration has alienated so many around the world, it appears that the Dems would cede much of the responsibility for combating terrorism to Kofi and the boys. The rest of the world might like us again, but can the Democrats tell us that we would be safer under such a plan?
Since none of the Democrats have offered more than a glimpse at their apparently secret plan to combat terrorism, I’m left to deduce it for myself based on the collective positions offered by various Democrats:
- The U.S. pulls out of Iraq before the Iraqi forces and government are capable of defending themselves. Iran then effectively seizes control of Iraq and expands their power.
- As a result of the above, the U.S. restores its reputation around the world. The French once again love us.
- U.N. sanctions thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
- U.N. peacekeepers disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon thereby ending one terrorist organization. Israel is saved.
- The Patriot Act would be watered down to be ineffective but Americans no longer have to worry about living in a police state.
- All surveillance of communications between the U. S. and terrorist organizations overseas would be ceased. Terrorists’ rights to privacy restored.
- Guantanamo would be shut down. Terrorists free to go.
A lot of “experts” are anticipating sweeping Democrat victories in November. An examination of the Democrats “plan” for the war on terrorism should they regain power suggests otherwise.
The party of Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and Dean cannot be counted to protect America. I just hope that the majority of voters see it the same way.
If Democrats do have a plan on the war on terror, most of it probably involves surrendering.
lol!
Democrats = The French of America
NOTHING!
New tagline attached
The DemonRats want us to return to the failed policies of Clintoon. They want to stop using military force and go back to trying to arrest terrorists and put them on trial. The enemy will see this as a sign of weakness and attack us like they did on 9/11. The DemonRats will then be upset that they won't be able to blame Bush. They will all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Now that's really saying something!
Ignore my screenname for the time being.
This one cracks me up, I can just see the mess we'd be in if the RATS got into office!!!
The Democrat's plan is so secret, not even they know.
I have absoultely no idea what the article was about. Did not read a word.
But I answered the question correctly.
Blame GWB.
I have absoultely no idea what the article was about. Did not read a word.
But I answered the question correctly.
that reads better.
Democrats are offering a free prayer mat and Koran with every vote.
They will also introduce a bill to replace the title "Senator" with "Imam", so in the future, we will have Imam Kerry, Imam Kennedy, And Pelosi and the others will not be allowed on the main floor, be covered from head to toe(that's a good thing!) and be locked in a back room.
ping
Brilliant, yes! Since the media won't do their job and make this obvious fact clear to the sheeple-by pressing Reid, Dean, Pelosi, Clinton et al., the Republicans better find a way to do this beyond relying the course of human events.
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.