Democrats still weak on security

Wall Street Journal ^ | March 21, 2008 | Karl Rove

[moderatewolverine]

One out of five is not a majority. Democrats should keep that simple fact of political life in mind as they pursue the White House.

For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they'll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office -- without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America's security -- a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

[moderatewolverine]

Karl Rove destroys dems for being weak on national security, preaching we've already lost the war in iraq, and letting the protect america act expire.

Right on brotha.

[SMARTY]

Ditto

[avacado]

Good article!

[adorno]

The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

If the democrats gain the white house, and they keep the house and senate, the will of the people won't matter. Heck, they'll take their control of the white house and of the senate and house as indicators, or mandates from the people, to do as they've been stating all along, that they'll withdraw from Iraq, no matter what.

Though the people may express their feeling in one direction, they (the people) often vote the opposite.

There is nothing "democratic" about democratic party leaders. They'll do as they wish and the American people's wishes be damned.

[Digital Sniper]

Unfortunately, the GOP can't lay claim to being strong on national security when the platform seems to include amnesty for illegal foreign invaders and doing precisely squat about securing our nation's borders.

Victory in Iraq is a good plan, but not at the cost of our own nation's borders.

[Squantos]

Below was in my e-mail this AM........:o)

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006
Whatever your politics, this report gives some interesting information.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006

(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the
following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the
armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ............. 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 .......... 1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ........... 890(George W Year)
&n bsp; 2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007.............. 899 (George W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures
mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS
than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency; when
America wasn’t even involved in a war!
It surprised me too, so I went on line to find out what military actions we
were in during Clinton’s presidency. Here is a web site I found that lists
out those conflicts. (not war)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_States#1991-1999

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of
President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US
military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members
of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on
which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those
‘facts’ which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of
them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so man y of them get
their marching-orders for their agenda? Obviously there is one shared
agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic
family of the decade.
Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It
shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by
Race:
European descent ..........................69.12%
Hispanic ......................................... 12.5%
Black ..............................................12.3%
Asian ............................................... 3.7%
Native American ..............................1.0%
Other ..............................................2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi
Freedom:
European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ..................................... 10.74%
Black ... ....................................... 9.67%
Asian ........................................... 1.81%
Native American ........................... 1.09%
Other ............................................ 0.33%

I was surprised again. . .until it became clear to me that the point here
is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political
gain). Nothing more. It’s all about politics and some politicians, are now
famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick
Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina , Jesse
Jackson, and the ‘blacks’ voting for the ‘black’ candidates); or Hillary’s
stump speech after her Super Tuesday ‘victory’ stating that the current
administration does not ‘listen’ to anyone and continues the war costing
precious American lives.
Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her
own husband’s administration, without having an actual war, sent more
soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to
release Osama when we actually had him detained. I hope that during the
time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the
facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even
more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.
Over the next months let’s be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening)
and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our
nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money
spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice?
Who spins the facts and who is genuine.
(These statistics are published by Cong ressional Research Service, and they
may be confirmed by anyone at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf)

[17th Miss Regt]

Karl Rove destroys dems for being weak on national security, preaching we've already lost the war in iraq, and letting the protect america act expire.

Karl Rove does not have time to destroy dems for being weak on national security, preaching we've already lost the war in Iraq, and letting the Protect America act expire. He is too busy working his weather creation machine and is currently destroying much of the midwest with storms and flooding.

[mallardx]

These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war!

Just a reminder, we were involved in Bosnia, and Bill Clinton did have six countries bombed during his eight years in office. I'm not sure if Operation desert Fox was a war or not.

[quark]

Now, if that Magnificent Bastard just wasn't such a suck-up to the illegal Mexican hordes and a “comprehensive immigration reform” advocate (read: open borders)...

[Lurker]

Excellent post my friend.

Thanks.

L

[PhillyRepublican]

Well Rove just dropped a bombshell didn’t he? Kind of like writing an article saying that the Pope is STILL Catholic..LOL

[DoughtyOne]

What a great report. That sure kills the lame claims of the left doesn’t it.

This is a keeper.