Who started the rumor that democrats and liberals are weak on defense .Oh yeah those spend happy republican nuts who have managed to put us in more debt then anytime in history .
How did liberals get tagged with weak on defense .We won ww1-ww2 Cuban Missle crisis .We are strong on defense
The pub's are not working on defense, they are "preemptive" what someone might do. Kinda like killing your neighbor so he can't think about killing you.
Reply:That was then, this is now. Your opinion means nothing in respect of the entire system.
Reply:The brave men of our Armed Forces won WWI. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces won WWII. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not a win/lose situation - it was a situation that could have gotten bad if it were not stopped, which it was.
You can bet that those forces were full of both Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. Actually, no. The labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" are fairly new, and weren't around then.
Reply:It the "liberal" medias fault.
Reply:It all started with LBJ...thats why...LBJ
Nixon had to clean up and by then it was too late...
Then you had Mr Peanut...enough said about that one...
then Bill "please bomb us again "Clinton...who basically did nothing while the jihadists built themselves up in the 90's
Reagan smacked down Lebanon and Libya pretty effectiviely in the 80's and oh yeah..the whole "knock down the wall" issue
Reply:The way I see it is the way ANN COULTER SEES IT::::::::::::::::::::::::What part of the War on Terrorism do they support?
By Ann Coulter
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick
American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in
Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror -- absolutely in favor of that war --
they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is
killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians
," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).
That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering
our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight
the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the
real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets
they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in
Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be
easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers
found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability
to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the
obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson,
resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out
the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the
White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to
al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo,
Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,
have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like
something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
You remember -- the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after
John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the
global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags,
based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others
were forced to listen to loud rap music -- more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at
"The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have
"no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been
given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo
are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make
the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December,
whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" --
a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry -- the man they wanted to be president -- called the Patriot Act
"an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death
at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into
the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami,
Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game.
Now that's a threat.
THAT'S THE REASON YOU HAVE THE WEAK ON DEFENSE REPUTATION BESIDES WANTING TO CUT AND RUN OUT OF IRAQ.
Reply:Two very big reasons why. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News.
Reply:That was the Democrat party of the past when the red and blue states were reversed. If this was the same party it once was, I'd be a member.
Reply:Liberals werent even around before 1966.
Reply:Wake up , Dude!
WW I was about 90 years ago.
WW II was 60.
The Cuban Missle Crisis was over 40 years ago, and came right after the Bay of Pigs Fiasco . . . remember?
What have the Dems won for us lately?
What have the bushies won for us lately?\
Sounds like all the stone throwers live in glass houses.
Put Up, or Shut Up !!
Better yet, just Shut Up !!
And Liberals %26amp; Conservitives have been around as long as politics has. You youngsters think you invented everything?
Have I done a good job of urinating everybody off, yet?
Reply:I detest that too. Democrats have been tough on defense and no Republican has done a major change in foreign affairs until now and they get all happy about this. Looking back in history democrats have done more and Republicans have screwed it up. We need a democrat tough on foreign affairs in 2008 to dispel the myth.
Reply:This is a loaded question, which I loathe to answer. I will simply point out that many prominent members of the 1960s peace movement are now promiment members of the Democratic Party. That is the reason that the party is considered by some to be "soft on defense."
No comments:
Post a Comment