Democrats versus Republicans

[cardiacpaul]

"Democrat: Someone who lets you screw whom you wish, but wants to take the money you earn and give it to those who are too lazy or too stupid to take care of themselves."

I think they call that....

Pimpin'

[TXS-ALAMO]

IN RE: BANG, BANG, BANG ECT. My old district attorney used to say, If you have the right to shoot to kill, then you have the right to keep on shootin!

[sailaway21]

I just made my first, and probably last, bet on the up-coming 2008 presidential election. Although the way things are going, I am not at all sure that anyone will vote in that election. Front-loading all of the primaries has added an extra year to the process of running, and by November of '08 most Americans are going to be so politically fatigued that they may decide to take the day off and sleep in, instead of vote.

I bet a Dem that a Republican would win in 2008. Put $100 on it. Why this rash move? Based on the recent Pelosi trip, and the likelyhood that the world will still be a very dangerous place in the fall of '08, and if the economy stays robust, I suspect that Americans will vote "security". So who would you vote for? The distasteful Republican who will probably keep you safe. Or the idiot Democrat who insists on reminding you, yes I am an idiot-just watch me.

What's the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Madeleine 'not so' Albright?
Nothing, except Albright was actually doing her job.

And another thing. Does that goofy smile Pelosi seems to always have plastered over her face remind you of Sally Fields, at the Oscars, saying, "you like me, you really like me"? It's either that or the look of a stoned out Arkansas beauty contest contestant who's found out she's getting only 'Miss Congeniality', again. Can't quite put my finger on it, for sure. i know the title would be for 'Miss Vacant Lot'.

[PBzeer]

If there's enough progress in Iraq for even the MSM not to ignore, that would be money in the bank.

[RAGNAR]

hhh

[sailaway21]

Rags,
Don't play the ass, there's a thread for that. If you wish to discuss religion or the lack thereof, I suggest you open a thread on it. This thread is titled dems vs reps. If you have any thoughts on that topic, I eagerly await them.

[RAGNAR]

nnn

[sailaway21]

After the Dems debate the other night, I'd say the race to the center is over, particularly for Mrs Clinton. I'm afraid that wherever two or more Democrats are gathered the floor naturally starts to tilt left. Mrs Clinton's crafted centrism just wafted away in an otherwise bravura political performance. Young Mr. Obama was no threat to reminding us of similar rail thin politicos originating in Springfield. Rational discourse, much less debate, will probably evaporate some time after Labor Day. My $100 looks safer post debate.

[camaraderie]

At least Ms. Clinton was the first one to raise her hand when asked "how many believe in a global war on terror?" Half of those idiots didn't even subscribe to that fundamental notion. I wish I felt as secure about your $100 bucks as you do S21...but I do HOPE your money is safe for entirely selfish reasons!!

[sailaway21]

General Petraeus had some interesting things to say this week. Lost in the snapshot media coverage were a few salient facts. The general informs that 80-90% of the bombings and attacks are being committed by foreigners, principally Al-Qaeda. Their preferred method of entry to Iraq; Syria. Also of note was his assertion that millions of Bahgdad residents continue to attempt to live their lives as normally as possible, with no interest or involvement in blowing each other up.

THAT is quite interesting as the Congress is in the process of figuring out how the US should surrender in time for the next election. How much sense does that make? We know that Al-Qaeda is the centerpiece of the war on terror. We also know that, with the help of Iran and Syria, their central focus is on the conflict in Iraq. If they can be perceived as defeating the US in Iraq they will be declared the victors. Let us not forget that every war has a victor and a loser. Pretenses to the opposite have a way of being cruelly revised in short order by historians. So, if we are surrendering, who are we surrendering to? Why, Al-Qaeda of course.

Let's consider the "vision" thing as GHW Bush might have put it. Who has a better vision for the most desirable outcome in this conflict? GW Bush has a goal of installing a democracy right in the middle of the most undemocratic, despotic region in the world. Unfortunately, for him, his rhetorical skills are not up to inspiring allegiance to his worthy cause. His opponents criticize him for upsetting the stability in the middle east, ignoring the fact that it is the "stability" of the middle east as presently constituted that brought us 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Status quo means more of the same, except it isn't just the Israeli's and Palestinian's anymore. Colin Powell famously replied to Saddam Hussein's assertion that only 2% of Americans knew where Iraq was located, "unfortunately for him, that 2% are US Marines". The results of that vision was the quick dispatch of Hussein and his regime. Al-Qaeda, with visions of it's own, scary in the contemplation thereof, saw clearly that the US was conveniently located in their backyard. Intuitively knowing that Americans hate to lose soldiers as much as civilians, they booked passage for Mesopotamia. As Mark Steyn says, in today's Chicago Sun-Times, the only people interested in Iraq are Iraqi's. For the rest of the players the issue is the US. All debate focuses around the US in Iraq. The US congress and Al-Qaeda share the same vision from rather different perspectives. The US congress wants the US out of Iraq post-haste, regardless of long term consequences. The Iraqi's problem is the Iraqi government's problem. We've given them the bike, now it's time to take the training wheels off, and we really don't have time for a discussion about traffic safety. Al-Qaeda wants the US either defeated in Iraq, and the country the centerpiece for the restoration of the caliphate, or withdrawn from Iraq which would symbolize much the same thing. Al-Qaeda understood full well what Powell was saying and have responded in kind. This recalls the words of Geo C Scott portraying Patton, "I have just the right instrument, at just the right moment in history, and am I not to be allowed to us it?" Al-Qaeda is on the field, their allies, Syria and Iran are fully involved, and the greatest war machine the world has ever known is deployed against them. We seem to, finally, have the proper general in place with a pentagon more committed to allowing yankee ingenuity it's rein. Let's roll. If a few bombs happen to fall on Syrian or Iranian territory during our closing of the border, so what? Those two feel rather invulnerable as long as the UN continues to dither about. We should disabuse them of the notion.

The surge is working, it should be escalated further. Success breeds adherents. The Iraqi's will work out their internal issues, probably not on our timetable. No matter, we're after Al-Qaeda and they're there. Mssr. Reid would have us withdraw and wait for them to find a decent travel agent with US credentials. Vladimir Putin is turning truculent. Gee, I wonder why? In the game of geo-politics you're either a player or you're not. Iran is a player because the world refuses to acknowledge that no inducement is sufficient to preventing their pursuit of nuclear armament. Syria is a player because thye can broker terrorism to their advantage with impunity. Putin cannot have Europe armed with missile defense and remain a player. US weakness is just the card he needs in that game. The Euros will do what they always do without a strong US; roll over and appease.

US homeland security is as much a joke as it was on 9/11. Our borders are of a porosity that we cannot even maintain economic control of them, let alone security control. A disabled communist Chinese ship, loaded with armaments for Cuba, lies wallowing in the swell for over a week, 90 miles off Hawaii, and we know nothing about it. Then, knowing nothing of what horrors what may lie below decks, we tow it in to Barber's Point, where she lays for a month or better. Call us lucky that ship wasn't part of a larger plan. There are no disincentives to Al-Qaeda returning to America, unless it's the current status of airline food. One of the most popular Democratic canidates for the presidency compares responses to terrorism to events such as hurricane Katrina. This is what passes for serious thinking on Capitol Hill. Joe Lieberman appears to be the only clear eyed Democrat in sight, with the possible exception of, the mostly invisible, Bill Richardson. GW Bush is apparently no fan of Teddy Roosevelt; forget the bully pulpit, he can't even find the pulpit. Why isn't Condi Rice explaining that there will be no negotiations with Iran and, btw, we'll be bombing supplies suspected of heading for Iraq. Sorry about that and all, one must realize it's even more difficult to view border lines at altitude as it is on the high seas. This administration seems content to let the Washington Post be the arbiter of what the American people need to be informed about regarding the current unpleasantness.

Nancy Pelosi couldn't be bothered to show up for General Petraeus' briefing, no doubt a conflict with her spa appointment. What does that mean? It means that she thinks the last election decided the American people's will on national security issues. Now that is foo-fa-raw that must be challenged and exploited, not the least by the current administration, if not republican canidates for high office. Harry Reid's bleatings should be exposed for just what they are, defeatism. Who will stand up and say that when you denigrate every success of the US military you are denigrating the US military? If someone finds fault with everything I do in my job, it's not long before I take it personal, regardless of any platitudes of their "support" for me. Politics is, rightly understood, to stop at the water's edge. Who will take these naive "leaders' to the wood-shed? Do we need to wait a couple of years to realize that Joe Lieberman is virtually alone in clear thinking about the challenge we face?

It's time to consider the positive sides of "imperialism". The Romans and the British ruled for the most part in a benign fashion. As long as their larger goals were met. Their subject nations could go along willingly or unwillingly, but go along they would. After compliance came leniency. It is not coincidence that most of what we regard as admirable about government and western culture was advanced by those empires. The US has bigger fish to fry than the sensibilities of middle east 'leaders' require. You are with us or against us-period. If you are with us, riches and rewards will flow. If you are against us, you are part of the problem, and you will be removed. Benevolence follows compliance and the gun. How do you want your benevolence? This is not a role the US fancies, but reality has come a knockin'. An uneasy imperial power gets the natives plotting. Strong leadership provides peace, stability, and the advancement of the human condition. Abdication of responsible leadership is what makes war necessary in the first place. Abdication of responsible leadership, in time of war, makes more war inevitable. Where and how would you like your war? Would you like to supersize that?