Posted on 08/17/2008 10:30:32 PM PDT by flyfree
Less than two years after Democrats finally bridged the decades-long gap between the parties on national security issues, Republicans have opened it right back up — a shift likely tied to the party's new standard-bearer John McCain and the perception of improvements in Iraq.
...
"Reagan was able to polarize the situation verbally and to some extent McCain is doing just that vis-a-vis Obama," Brzezinski said.
Brzezinski added, "I thought that the first comments" by Obama "were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem." Obama's later statements, he said, struck the right tone.
"In the meantime, McCain was able to leap into the timing gap," Brzezinski continued. "Timing in all these things, timing, tone and ability to crystallize the issue sharply, is what is important."
I love the smell of DUmmie desperation in the morning...
B.S. - they never bridged any such gap. Nov. 2006 was about Abramoff, earmarks, dirty messages to congressional pages, and a disenchanted GOP base sitting out the election.
I stopped reading here..
I agree with those who argue that 2006 was not about security, but the exent it has reopenned, the security gap reopenning can be attributed to:
1. President Bush and the US military showing the Dim lie that the war on terror was lost to be the lie it was.
2. McCain being a strong security candidate.
3. Obama being a very weak security candidate.
4. The Russians putting the issue front and center.
Seems to me that war is never “popular”, but “security” is always popular.
Where should be the focus of McCains campaign?
Besides us fanatics, “Political Junkie’s” who of the massive electorate pays much heed, or even understands Foreign Policy?
The glazed over eyes understand “Security”.
“Brzezinski”
BHO’s advisor - Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, right? his policies were never pro-US.
Brzezinski added, "I thought that the first comments" by Obama "were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem."Brzezinski's not much of a spin doctor, eh?
Don’t look now, but, the President of Pakistan will be resigning today, that should give more urgency to our national security...
Brzezinski thought it’s smart to replace the pro-US Shah with an anti-US Ayatollah. Tells enough about where he stands.
Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.
Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser
But his most important role in the world is as father of that brilliant geopolitical wunderkind Mika Brezinski (ditzy talking head on PMSNBC).
McCain’s experience is not only showing, but really beginning to pay off compared to Barry Obama the kid with the way left political philosophies.
Actually, foreign policy and national defense matter to most of the electorate. They paid attention to it during the Cold War. When you take an 8 year holiday from national defense (1993-2000) and when terrorists fly hijacked planes into buildings killing 3000 of your fellow citizens, it matters.
The democrats are so bad at it (i.e. "hate America") they have their minions in the media tell the populace that it does not matter in order for them to get elected. They try to fake it come up with false crisis, like "health care crisis", when none exist.
Mr. Brzezinski, I don’t know why you insist that you be educated on this simple matter.
Neither Reagan nor McCain have forced the Democrats to be the anti-America, anti-military party for the past four decades. They did it themselves, and that’s why the country is polarized on national security.
If you don’t want to be called anti-military, don’t be anti-military.
“Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser”
Yes, of course - my mistake, thanks. (It was late when I was posting:-))))))))))))))))
“Brzezinski thought it’s smart to replace the pro-US Shah with an anti-US Ayatollah. Tells enough about where he stands.”
And look at what we’ve been faced with ever since. Saw and met Brigitte Gabriel tonight - she referenced ‘79 as the real beginning of our (and the world’s) major troubles with radical Islam began.
It’s SO clear that BHO would be Jimmy Carter on steroids. While we “survived” Carter, the world is so much more dangerous and so many more “bad guys” are nuclearly armed (in various stages) that this time, we simply cannot risk a repeat of an even worse version of Carter in the form of Obama.
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.