Halleluiah! Democrats to Fight Terror!
Watchit, Osama! Dems Are Gonna Gitcha!
Those Dem-Hawks have had it!
Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer are packing heat and a united Warrior Left is gonna kick some OBL A$$!
Mark your calendars. Today is a historic day. Democrats are announcing today, four-and-one-half years after 9-11, that THEY have saved a can of Whoopass for the jihadists! Well, Alright!
Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.This, of course, is a new direction for the Dems. We are assuming that they they have put aside for now beliefs that:
In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.
"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction - "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
* America's media is the enemy
* George Bush is the enemy
* Personal property rights is the enemy
* Christians are the enemy
* Moderate Muslims are the enemy
* Walmart is the enemy
* Business is the enemy
* Republicans are the enemy
* The 10 Commandments are the enemy
* America is the enemy
...Who have I missed?
Because as we all know, Our military and their families are stretched thin... The Army is broken." Fighting another front would be too much for them.
Democrats...
Strong, Smart
Here's a quick look at the Dem plan:
* Eliminate Osama bin Laden-
Even though they have a long legacy of ignoring threats. (Look out for lobbed bombs! Clear the aspirin factories!)
* Responsible redeployment of U.S. forces-
This must be the the Murtha redeployment plan of relocating troops to Okinawa to fight the War on Radical Islam.
* Double the number of special forces-
Democrats cut military spending 7 out of 8 years that Clinton was in office, the only spending that democrats hate.
* Add more spies-
In 1997, 1998,...
4 out of 5 Democrats voted to cut US Intelligence Budget!
* Their plan not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn-
Yet, the Democrats are the ones pushing for a timeline to withdrawal of forces!
Republicans welcome this new direction.
Wizbang notes the national security heavy weights who will be attending today's press conference. Not exactly a "Who's Who" of Kicka$$ !
Dr. Sanity wrote a poem for the occasion.
Don Surber has a picture of their "defense is #1" campaign poster.
All Things Beautiful has an undercover Democratic Spy Photo.
Punditguy says it is a one man focused plan.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 3/29/2006 03:37:00 AM
49 Comments:
But won't Nancy Pelosi have to leave her firepower outside the city limits?
Mocking the Democrats for declairing war on OBL? Well...how's the current establishment doing on that one? I mean...aside from that whole stirring up additional hornet nests in Iraq.
The Dems would have to do pretty horribly to do worse than the republicans at this point. (Not that I doubt their capacity for making a bigger mess out of an already rotten situation)
What's truly brilliant about your post is that it works even better if you subsitute the names of Republicans. Try it, it's fun!
Nice of Bush to let Osama go free, not protect our borders and generally fuck up national security so that the Dems could get a little glory. That's being a uniter, baby.
Everyone knows the Democrats will do nothing to fight terror. Hell, they were offered OBL on a silver platter and refused him. Am I now to believe that they have changed their mind.
The Dems approach reminds me of the King's son in Braveheart where the son suggests to his father to just have William Wallace arrested by the magistrate. The King slaps his son and informs him that Wallace has killed the magistrate. Dems, OBL has killed the magistrate, so your approach will not work. Someone slap these Democrats!
What's the Republican plan? What do they stand for besides "We're against the Democrats" and "Finding OBL is hard work!"?
Does anyone know what the Repubs stand for? No boys kissin', Mexicans are bad (unless they take care of my kids/clean my house), and "Who's Jack Abramoff?"! Solid.
"Watch it Osama! the Dems are gonna gitch you"
About time somebody did, don't you think
jeff
PS: Tried the "substituting the word republican" thing. Pretty funny...in a tragic sort of way.
Oh yea...then there's this:
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
"What do the Republicans stand for?"
and "we're against the democrats"
Oh boy. This is so rich coming from the party of obstruction. I'm pretty sure every single person in the US knows what W stands for and what he's been trying to do for the last five-odd years. Psst. He recently won an election on what he stands for.And he laid it out in countless speeches. West point, Westminster etc etc. And yeah, it's a whole lot more than just being "agains the Democrats.
B/c, after all, how can you be "against something" that has yet to be defined.
It's actually quite a typical lib ploy. To ry and toss the charges that have been made against your party -- and have stuck (see 2004, election of) -- back against your opponent.
Thanks for the laught tho. That's about all the Left is useful for these days.
Please. Gateway - RNC jock huffers could’nt get a bagel right, let alone your story straight.
Perhaps you could explan how the real bad guys run free- you could start by citing competent (yet for you inconvenient)sources like those who worked for the CIA (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec04/osama_12-16.html ) -it could light light that lone christmas bulb upstairs.
No one over here will come clean as to why Bin Laden evaded capture nor will you bother, that would implicate the Bush administrations’ abominable job in the war on terror.
Surely some of you are not calling what the Democrats suggest a plan. Do they intend to invade Pakistan to find OBL? This is not a plan, but the antithesis of a plan. This is nothing, which is representative of all Democratic plans. And the Republicans are not much better.
Ah, yes. The Dems' can of whoop-ass.
Fun-size, and four years past its "use by" date.
What do they know...duh!!! that democrats are strong on terror? Suddenly, they think that we the voters are that stupid??? believe whatever they say??? democrats are trying to be commedians, nice try but it will not work.
I'll tell you what the real Democratic plan is. Get as many illegal aliens into the country as possible, give them citizenship, line them up at the polls with Democratic helpers, vote the Democratic ticket, open the borders to everyone, including jihadists, and kiss our asses goodbye. Now that is a plan!
Two words on the Democrats and intelligence:
Torricelli Principle.
Removing our eyes and ears, and abandoning our contacts and (in some cases) friends around the world.
NED
You are exactly correct: 4 and a half years later, and a Republican Congress working lockstep with a Republican President haven't accomplished anything of note. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I think it's kind of pointless to accuse Democrats of having a pre-9/11 mindset before 9/11. They may have voted to reduce intelligence spending in the mid-90s but that was at a time when few people in either party appreciated the threat we faced from terrorism. Even in August 2001, the Bush administration clearly did not comprehend the threat.
It is interesting that all of the intelligence cuts you mention were defeated, and yet the 9/11 attacks were still successful. Simply pouring more money into intellience in the 90s may not have helped much without a fundamental understanding of the threats we faced, and both parties seemed to lack that.
That Dems can even advance this argument you so poorly satirize should give you pause. What has Bush done other than to start a bogus war that enriches his old-money military industrial complex running friends? The fact is not only is the American public still under the impression that Sadam had a link with 9/11, so do our men fighting in Iraq. Bush has successfully deceived the nation and has failed to devote adequate resources to getting Osama. That is the bottom line. We are in far more danger now becuse of his lies and his bigus war than we ever were before. that isn't funny. So before you go off trying very poorly to be funny, maybe you should consider the sources for the absurdity of which you fail so miserable at turning into a joke. Bush has failed to get Osama because he's a liar who wages bogus war for the special interests to which he is beholden.
Whenever I'm feeling down and blue I link to one of you Right Wingnuts and pretty soon I'm laughing so hard I can't remember what I was blue about.
Like you Bushistas have done such a wonderful job of catching OBL, securing our ports and borders, and defeating the terrorists in Iraq. The only thing you've done with any efficiency is create a new criminal class of indicted Republican lawmakers and lobbyists.
In case you've forgotten REPUBLICANS have been in charge of creating this mess. "Mission Accomplished", Katrina, Abramoff, lies about WMDs, Abu Ghraib, no Border Security, selling our Ports, record deficits, graft and corruption. Republican accomplishments to be proud of, I'm sure.
Democrats couldn't do any more damage to this country if they were the evil, America-hating demons you Wingnuts think we are.
It would really be nice if once in a while you would demand some honesty and good governance from your own people - who happen to be running(?) this country - instead of penning juvenile put-downs of those who want to correct the manifest failures of your Fearless Leader.
Unfortunately, that would take a level of maturity sadly lacking from your end of the political spectrum.
Does anyone seriously think that if we "get" Osama, the war on terror is won?
I've got some bad news folks...the war on terror will be won when we kill the last terrorist, and not before.
As for the Democrats and national defense: I wouldn't trust today's run-of-the-mill Democrat to defend my dogs. Of course, I love my dogs.
PS: If George Bush is doing such a lousy job killing terrorists, why is Osama so hard to find? Seems to me he'd have a nice corner office somewhere.
Well now liberal percy, you say:
In case you've forgotten REPUBLICANS have been in charge of creating this mess. "Mission Accomplished", Katrina, Abramoff, lies about WMDs, Abu Ghraib, no Border Security, selling our Ports, record deficits, graft and corruption. Republican accomplishments to be proud of, I'm sure."
Where do I start?
Katrina: Which party do the gov. of Louisianna and the mayor of NOLA belong to?
Harry Reid ever take any money from Abramoff clients...or write any letters for them? How about other Dems?
If Bush lied about WMDs, so did Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Teddy K, etc., etc., etc.
Was border security better under Clinton?
Even casual observers know that NO PORT was being sold.
Ever heard of deficit spending in time of war?
"Graft and corruption"? How about making a comparison of Clinton people indicted as opposed to Bush people?
Abu Ghraib? Except as an occasion to take a cheap shot....how is that the Republicans' fault? I would point out that the perpetrators are being tried under the UCMJ, and if found guilty punished accordingly.
Bluntly as I can...you want to talk immaturity? Take a look in the mirror.
"Does anyone seriously think that if we "get" Osama, the war on terror is won?"
No, but cutting off the head would be a great start, and certainly a better use of our resources than waging bogus war.
The poor thinking done by Bush loving wingers is perfectly captured by the comment:
"I've got some bad news folks...the war on terror will be won when we kill the last terrorist, and not before."
Your ignorance and inability to think in any nuanced or complex way is shocking. Do you think it would be possible to kill every last terrorist without creating new terrorists to take their place? have you ever considered why terrorists exist, or do you just think that they hate our country for no reason other than they are born that way or are taught to by their religion?
The study that showed conservatives tend to oversimplify issues and see complex issues in black and white was spot on. It is shocking how simple minded Bush supportes can be.
Yea, kill them all wherever they are on the Earth will make us all sooo much safer and is sure to end the war on terror. Jesus.
Hello kettle? This is the pot!
Pardon me if I am a bit confused...
Who exactly has controlled all three branches of government in the past five years?
The last time I looked, the Republicans were in power, not the Democrats.
You, rightnutters, are desperate now that your President's polls and those of his incompetent cohorts in Congress are in the toilet. Only 36% of people support Bush; only 28% approve of the job that Congress is doing.
What is the President's party? REPUBLICAN. Who controls Congress? The REPUBLICANS. Who has a majority of judgeship seats? The REPUBLICANS.
YOUR crowd has turned everything it has touched into shit. YOUR crowd is responsible for the chain of fuck-ups of the past five years.
You can scream, yell, point fingers, and lash out, as much as you want. The point is that a MAJORITY of people sees the BushCo apparatus for what it is: an abysmal failure.
For people who are supposedly so keen on personal responsibility, you, rightnutters, surely are doing a lot of accusing.
It is too late for you, though. You have already lost. A majority of Americans has finally woken up from the Kool-Aid-induced nughtmare of the past five years.
"Jim in Chicago said...
Oh boy. This is so rich coming from the party of obstruction."
Yeah, I was using debate tactic called turning the argument on its head. Repugs have been complaining that the Dems don't stand for anything, we have no plan, etc. So when we have a plan (see above) and you guys complain about it... I thought you could use some of your own medicine. Why is it that the constituents of the Party of Rhetoric have to have rhetoric explained to them?!?!
"I'm pretty sure every single person in the US knows what W stands for and what he's been trying to do for the last five-odd years."
Yet, you can't articulate it here... must be very complicated!
"Psst. He recently won an election on what he stands for."
Psst, he won by 80,000 votes in Ohio with the help of anti-gay marriage props. See guys kissin' above...
"And he laid it out in countless speeches. West point, Westminster etc etc. And yeah, it's a whole lot more than just being "agains (sic) the Democrats."
Yes, I've heard the speech. He's been giving it since about 2002. Something about 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, and fear.
"how can you be "against something" that has yet to be defined."
See links above. Just because Repugs can't be bothered to go to the numerous Dem websites and read what they stand for/what policies they would propose (it's alot different than what you assume), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that Instapundit/Rush/O'Reilly aren't talking about it (and why would they, for that matter).
"It's actually quite a typical lib ploy. To ry (sic) and toss the charges that have been made against your party -- and have stuck (see 2004, election of) -- back against your opponent."
Please. GOoPers are the epitome of the projection aesthetic - e.g. "Dems just throw money at problems"; reality = the GOoPer controlled government is now running the greatest deficit ever in the history of our nation.
"Thanks for the laught tho (sic). That's about all the Left is useful for these days."
Your welcome. Although, like I said earlier, I think you missed the rhetorical flourish. Unintended comedy, however, is better than no comedy at all.
You had better hope that the Dems are useful. Because the worm will turn (it always does) and they're going to be in charge again real soon.
Well thanks Lazerlou, you make my point very well for me.
I don't care to psycho-analyze these people.
I don't care to make apologies for them.
I don't even care to feel sorry for them.
And I certainly don't care to pay them off so they'll leave us alone.
The best thing we can do to fight terrorism is try to give people the chance at self-determination (see Iraq and Afghanistan). If they don't want that, that's their business. But I would point out that the people we are fighting right now are the ones who stand in the way of folks who DO want to have a say in their futures....you know, like democracy provides?
If you think the United States can please every knucklehead on this planet with a chip on his shoulder, you are sadly mistaken. Consequently, there will be enemies to be dealt with as long as this civilization stands. And the weapon of choice of some of these enemies will be terrorism.
I burst out laughing when I saw this headline from AP: "Bush Blames Saddam For Iraq Instability".
It gets better by the way.
Methink that you, rightnutters, are going to keep us -- the majority -- entertained for quite a while as you scurry around making fools of yourselves.
Keep it up!
TGHarris,
What is your level of education? I'm curious.
I'm not sure what your point is or how I helped you make it. You seem like a confused person who has trouble thinking well.
If you actually belive this spreading democracy BS, I hope you are concerned that the Bush administration is trying to oust the democratically elected leader of Iraq. So much for self-determination.
Do yourself a favor and go brush up on your Republican president D. Eisenhower. Pay close attention to his warning the country about the growing pwoer of the military-industrial complex. You might have an awakening and begin to see the truth of the matter behind Bush's motivations. Right now I just pity you for how easily you have been duped. Good luck.
Lazer Loser,
What does someone's level of education have to do with anything? No matter the level, every person is this country has the right to voice their opinion. And to vote. And their voice is just as good as yours.
It really pisses me off when some dumb ass like you questions another person's intelligence. You ought to have your face slapped, you little elite bitch.
The point, Lazerlou, is that Dems can't be trusted with national security. Thanks again.
BTW, my level of formal education is somewhere between that of Abraham Lincoln and my family physician. Why? Are diplomas supposed to cause conspiracy paranoia? If so, I guess my un-educated status betrays me.
Templar Knight doth protest too much, methinks!
If all you could come up with is calling me "lazer loser," then I'll just skip ahead and not bother to ask you the same question.
Actually someone's education will determine in part how well they think about complex issues and whether they'd be easily influenced by sophistry and convenient arguments that are easy to understand and that appeal to fear.
As a statistical matter, education matters a lot in determining whether or not you voted for GWB if you are not in the top 10% of wealth nationally. And education tracks participation in organized religion closely as well.
Templar, you say:
"No matter the level, every person is this country has the right to voice their opinion. And to vote. And their voice is just as good as yours."
While you are right about the voting and the right to voice an opinion, I do dispute your assertion that the voice of the uneducated is "just as good" as mine. Actually it isn't in content or form, and for very obvious reasons that I hope are apparent to you.
And it was clearly you who ascribed a negative connotation to my question. I am curious about education levels becasue I'm interested in statistics and I suspect that most people who would argue "the war on terror will be won when we kill the last terrorist, and not before" probably hasn't graduated from college.
Now, I'll admit openly and often I'm elite when it comes to education and intelligence, and proud of it. I'll also point out that elites don't resort to threats of violence when their comfort zones are threatened with ideas. You should try to better yourself templar knights - evolution of the mind starts with you.
Four and a half years and a monopoly in congress, and Bush still doesn't have Osama? And Al-Qaeda is still thriving? Geez, what took them so long.
The GOP has used the Fearful Patriot card for the past five years; now Democrats can use their record against them, for their own political game.
Welcome to political reality GP.
Lazer Loser,
So you think education has everything to do with Bush support, do you, Loser? I wonder how many people in New Orleans had college degrees, or did they all vote for Bush? The statistics seem to show that the vast majority of blacks in the South, the least educated group in the United States, voted for Kerry by a 9 to 1 margin. So much for your theory.
Hmmm...and if you are so damn smart, you would have noticed that I said you deserved to have your face slapped. That is hardly a threat. As for my allegation of little bitch, I think you have borne that out with your post. Yes indeed, loser is an accurate description of you. You've proven it with your own words, for everyone here to see.
Templar,
Gosh you are sharp! Touche, I have been bested by your quick wit and sharp analysis. I was clearly arguing education was the only statistical factor that determined how one voted! Your counter example was brilliant! Race and income matter too?! - I simply hadn't ever thought of it! I have been bested.
And pardon me, you are right, you only wished someone would be violent toward me, not that you wanted to be yourself. My bad. You clearly aren't a poorly educated hick who resorts to violence when presented with ideas that upset your sheltered, fearful world!
Well done,
Lazer Loser.
Isn't threatening to slap someone just a wee bit gay? Its OK, Mr. Knight, with us. Just don't tell your GOoPer friends. Boy kissin' will be the death of us all!!!
Lazer, you can't be as stupid as you seem. Again, saying you deserve to have your face slapped is not threatening to slap you nor wishing someone else would slap you. It's just that your elitist attitude makes you deserving of a slap. Your mother should have done just that 20 years ago, it seems. Oops, I did say your mother should have slapped you. Sorry about that.
But, nonetheless, I have seen your hare-brained ideas before trying to compare educational levels with religion and voting patterns. Pathetic!
Templar,
For someone who is splitting semantic hairs in a desparate attempt to not look like a brutish imbecile, you should have quoted yourself accurately: You said I "ought" to be slapped, not simply that I "deserved" to be. I mean if we are going to look like a desperate dolt attempting to mitigate our violent reactionary responses, lets at least try to do so accurately, shall we?
Yes it is true, my mom was too busy actually educating me to waste her time with corporal punishment. Quite obviously, yours wasn't. And that makes sense, strangely enough.
But don't worry - it's not your lack of a formal education that is your (or anybody's) problem, it is your lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity that allows your mind to be bullied by arguments founded in fear and religion.
Now I'm not sure what you dispute. Is it that you argue there is no statistically significant correlation between education and religious observance? Or that there is no statistically significant correlation between certain levels of education and voting patterns?
Or is it that you just know that I'm wrong, you're right and I *ought* to have my face slapped?
Who's splitting hairs? And why would I care what you think about me? And to be called a dolt by someone as stupid as you I take as the highest of compliments. Thanks!
And you may be educated in the formal sense, but you negate it by the elitist attitude you are so obviously proud of. Ah, well, just so you know, me being fearful and intellectually dishonest and all, I seem to remember reading somewhere, "Pride goeth before a fall." And it will be a long way down for you. Regards!
Templar, I'll be sure to say hi on my way down.
Your superior in every possible way,
Lazer Loser
Bush could have fought a war on terror,
But focused on Iraq instead.
Since this invasion was an error,
Too many people now are dead.
And as for Rummy, and for Cheney,
They think they're fighting the Cold War.
They babble lots of miscellany
But don't know what they're fighting for.
The Democrats, like Reid, Obama
Pelosi, Reed, have flaws, no doubt,
But still, they want to catch Osama,
Who Bush is not concerned about.
Who tried to make our ports secure?
The Democrats. Who shot it down?
Republicans. What is the cure?
More Democrats in D.C. town.
The Dems have signed up actual thinkers
To think up terror-fighting tricks;
Repubs are merely lazy stinkers,
Still stuck in nineteen-eighty-six.
To occupy Iraq forever
Appears to be the Bushies' plan;
The plan, I think, is not too clever --
And they may lose Afghanistan.
To praise the Dems with strength and surity
May make the righties scream and curse,
But when it comes to our security,
One thing I know: Repubs are worse.
Lazer Loser,
That would be "you're" superior in every way, not "your". "Your" formal education that "you" are so proud of is showing signs of fray.
Clever Templar! I didn't think you had it in you.
Just found your blog.
Thumbs up.
Some plan. So basically the "new plan" is to position themselves to take credit for the results of actions the Bush administration.
Their plan is to do everything that is already being done, but somehow "better".
Tgharris said-
"Harry Reid ever take any money from Abramoff clients...or write any letters for them?"
Typical reactionary response, insinuating "you're just as dirty as we are" without factual basis. Reid's vote against a competing indian casino was directly in line with his opposition of off-reservation gambling, of which Reid has been a vocal opponent, ON RECORD for a decade or more.
As for the slave factories Delay and Abramoff support in the Marianas, Reid actually co-sponsored the bill to raise the minimum wage (and spoke in favor of same) that Abramoff and Delay (and their benefactors) were so against.
As for King George's run up to the war, wonder if TGHarris saw this this morning-
"Today, the National Journal reports that Bush was "personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration."
The warning apparently came in the form of a one-page summary of the National Intelligence Estimate that Bush received in October 2002. It told the president about a dispute within the U.S. government about whether Iraq was using aluminum tubes for conventional or nuclear purposes. Nonetheless, Bush would mention the tubes as nuclear devices, without qualification, in his State of the Union address three months later.
Presidential advisor Karl Rove, according to the article, made it a priority to keep this fact secret until after the 2004 election."
Let me guess, the SOU lies were all the Dem's fault, too, right?
I think Jesus would kick all of your phony asses....
National Journal? Now that is a widely read publication, I bet, even though I have never heard of it. And Jesus would kick our asses? You MUST be a Bible scholar.
Not much in tune with irony, are you? Not surprising.
So, care to challenge any of my positions or instead perhaps you would like to spout what the National Enquirer has to say on the subject since it is so "widely read"?
Jeessh....
Excellent post! You got them right in their Achilles' heel - see all the scared little girly men crying boohoohoo! The bigger the hit, the louder they wail.
Cleaned Spam 9-22-07
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home