posted October 03, 2006 03:07 PM            

I think it's incumbent upon democrats...who want to lead to share their ideas and plans in critical areas...before we elect them.

On Iraq...do democrats plan to cut and run..as they have proposed and leave Iraq and it's citizens at the mercy of Islamic terrorists. Is this a plan which benefits America and Americans and makes us safer? If so, how would we be safer? Do democrats realize we were not fighting Islamic terrorists when they attacked the US all through the 1990's and on 9/11/01?

John Murtha and other democrats want to effect what they term..a redeployment of American forces...to Guam. John Murtha says they could be "instantly" redeployed to Iraq in case of trouble there. Being totally ignorant of geography, Murtha doesn't know Guam is about 5,000 miles from Iraq. So, if democrats definition of "instantly" is 4 to 6 weeks, then US military forces could be "instantly" redeployed to Iraq to put down any challenge to the duly elected Iraqi government.

There are many...mostly democrats who claim the Iraq war is an illegal war. If that's true, what are democrat plans to put the situation right? Would those plans include putting Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq? If not, how could democrats be a continuing party to the overthrow of a legitimate government? After all, congressional democrats voted overwhelmingly to overthrow Saddam. So, what happens to the elected government of Iraq. Do democrats propose to leave this illegal government in power in Iraq, or overthrow it and reinstate the legitimate government of Saddam Hussein? If democrats do not plan to put Saddam Hussein back in power..after his illegal overthrow, why not?

There are many, mostly democrats who say Bush attacked the WTC and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it.

Does that mean the Taliban was illegally overthrown in Afghanistan? Does that mean the elected government in Afghanistan is in fact an illegal government? Will democrats move to overthrow the elected government of Afghanistan and put the Taliban back in power? If not, why not?

Democrats are fond of the theory of world opinion governing US actions. Does that mean that if America is directly attacked, as we were all through the 1990's and again on 9/11..which is the viewpoint of almost all Americans...does that mean we must go to the world and ask for permission to defend ourselves? Is the John Kerry theory of US military forces to be put into practice? "US military forces should never be deployed anywhere outside US borders..unless they are under the direct command of UN military commanders and the United Nations". Is this the way democrats would protect America?

Democrats have called repeatedly for withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and the money saved from that action spent on improving Homeland Security and better equipping First Responders to terrorist attacks. Is this an admission democrats have no interest in "preventing" terrorist attacks but want a better response when we are attacked? Is this an admission democrats are perfectly willing to have Americans attacked and killed in the US so long as First Responders are there to limit the carnage? Is this an admission democrats would sit back and wait for America to be attacked, then respond?

These questions must be asked of democrats and answered. Democrats have obstructed the Presidents attempts to find, track, subvert, thwart, capture and kill terrorists...before they can attack the US and US citizens. Does the democrat plan to deal with terrorists consist of limiting the damage and deaths..after terrorists have actually attacked? Does the democrat plan to bring Islamic terrorists to justice consist of prosecuting them in the criminal courts of America..with full US citizenship legal rights...the Clinton Plan?

Democrats are fond of talking out of every side of their mouths. It's time for some specific answers to the very issues democrats have continually raised.

It's time for the general democrat blather to stop and specifics to start.

"Restore the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world" isn't going to cut it come election time.

"Making America safer" isn't going to cut it come election time.

"Fixing the economy" isn't going to cut it come election time. BTW, it's been a great economy for more than 3 years. Right now..at 2:10pm..October 3, 2006, the stock market..DJIA is 30 points above it's highest close in history.

So, start talking democrats..and no general blather..specifics only.

Do democrats plan to reinstate the Marriage Penalty? Democrats have attacked the President on that issue repeatedly.

Do democrats plan to reinstate the Marxist Death Tax? Democrats have attacked the President on that issue repeatedly.

Do democrats plan to do away with the tax cuts which removed income tax liability for many middle and lower income families entirely? Do democrats realize "the rich" pay a higher percentage of collected income taxes now than they did under Clinton? Do democrats understand lowering the tax rates increased government tax revenues more than 15% above the higher and broader tax rates imposed during the Clinton era?

Time for some straight talk from democrats. Ditch the blather and level with America.

Do democrats plan to institute a socialist health care system in America? Do democrats realize that in nations which have socialized medicine, many people die waiting to be seen by a physician..or the disease advances beyond any treatment option? Do democrats realize people in nations with socialized medical care are being denied treatment for treatable disease? Do democrats realize that in nations with socialized medical care bureaucrats with no medical training decide what treatment, if any, physicians are permitted to dispense to patients and that decision in not based on need, not based on the anticipated outcome but IS based on cost?

posted October 10, 2006 01:21 AM            

quote:

---

I think it's incumbent upon democrats...who want to lead to share their ideas and plans in critical areas...before we elect them.

---

Democrats have shared their plans. You have access to Google. Use it.

You don't choose to listen to Democrats. As such it's impossible for Democrats to owe you anything.

quote:

---

On Iraq...do democrats plan to cut and run..as they have proposed and leave Iraq and it's citizens at the mercy of Islamic terrorists. Is this a plan which benefits America and Americans and makes us safer? If so, how would we be safer? Do democrats realize we were not fighting Islamic terrorists when they attacked the US all through the 1990's and on 9/11/01?

---

Shall we hear from our top presidential candidate?

"There are no easy answers as to how we solve the problems created by this administration. There are no easy answers as to how we work to enable the Iraqis to hold their country together and to keep it from becoming a terrorist refuge and launching pad. I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the president to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional commitment, nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences.

Instead, I support this responsible way forward, a road map for success that will more quickly and effectively take advantage of Iraqi oil revenues, build up Iraqi's infrastructure, foster Iraqi civil society, challenge Iraq's neighbors to do more to ensure stability in Iraq and allow our troops to begin coming home." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/NationalSecurity/

No "Cut and run" strategy there.

Biden?

"One, we must help forge a political settlement that gives all of Iraq’s major groups a stake in keeping the country together.

Two, we must strengthen the capabilities of Iraq’s government and revamp the reconstruction program to deliver real benefits.

Three, we must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces and transfer control to them." -Joe Biden Nov. 2005 http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=249188

John Edwards?

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
- John Edwards Nov. 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

It doesn't seem that "cut and run" is on the lips of any of our good faces. You want to bring Harry Reid into it? http://www.democrats.senate.gov/agenda/real_security/act_2006/iraq.cfm

What's even more striking is that when you compare the substance of the statements made by the Democrats to the substance of Republican statements, they're very close.

From Bill Frist:

"4. What is our strategy for achieving this goal? Defeat the insurgency using military force while helping Iraq build its own security forces so that they can perform this mission. Help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure and economy to promote growth, prosperity, and hope. Promote democracy and its institutions through a political process that culminates in an elected government that respects and represents the views of all Iraqis. Integrate the new Iraq into the international community of civilized nations. The political, security, and economic tracks of this strategy are mutually reinforcing, and coalition forces and the Iraqi people are steadfastly committed to ensuring its implementation." http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Detail&Issue_id=70

quote:

---

John Murtha and other democrats want to effect what they term..a redeployment of American forces...to Guam. John Murtha says they could be "instantly" redeployed to Iraq in case of trouble there. Being totally ignorant of geography, Murtha doesn't know Guam is about 5,000 miles from Iraq. So, if democrats definition of "instantly" is 4 to 6 weeks, then US military forces could be "instantly" redeployed to Iraq to put down any challenge to the duly elected Iraqi government.

---

I think Murtha does know exactly where Guam is: closer to North Korea, which is a more credible threat to the U.S. than Iraq was when we went to war with Iraq. I think I would tend to side with the people who say to stay in Iraq, however, because Japan and China are surrounding Korea.

quote:

---

There are many...mostly democrats who claim the Iraq war is an illegal war. If that's true, what are democrat plans to put the situation right? Would those plans include putting Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq? If not, how could democrats be a continuing party to the overthrow of a legitimate government? After all, congressional democrats voted overwhelmingly to overthrow Saddam. So, what happens to the elected government of Iraq. Do democrats propose to leave this illegal government in power in Iraq, or overthrow it and reinstate the legitimate government of Saddam Hussein? If democrats do not plan to put Saddam Hussein back in power..after his illegal overthrow, why not?

---

Our pursuit of starting a war with Iraq is without precedent. The justification was weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Neither were true. Article 51 of the U.N. charter doesn't speak to allowing member countries to engage in 'preventative' war.

Anyway, it's silly to suggest that a Democrat would have to put everything back the way it was in order to make things legal again. We don't live in some fantasy world where we can go back and change events pursued in an unintelligent manner. We just have to be practical moving forward...practical as we were before the war started when we advocated taking the time to develop our strategy, our argument, our consensus, and our coalition in a way that the world could get behind.

quote:

---

There are many, mostly democrats who say Bush attacked the WTC and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it.

---

I can't answer for conspiracy theorists.

quote:

---

Democrats are fond of the theory of world opinion governing US actions. Does that mean that if America is directly attacked, as we were all through the 1990's and again on 9/11..which is the viewpoint of almost all Americans...does that mean we must go to the world and ask for permission to defend ourselves? Is the John Kerry theory of US military forces to be put into practice? "US military forces should never be deployed anywhere outside US borders..unless they are under the direct command of UN military commanders and the United Nations". Is this the way democrats would protect America?

---

Why don't you read article 51 of the U.N. charter. It's spelled out. Kerry doesn't quite get it right in your quote.

You know what's weird about this whole line of thinking of yours is that it's in contradiction with our principles of democracy. We believe in representative government. The U.N. is set up under the same principle. We should not stand alone and apart in the world. We should be an active participant, and open to input. Granted our place need not be exactly equal since we have more resources at our disposal, and more capacity for good as a result, but we ought not think ourselves above listening to the voices of the international community.

quote:

---

Democrats have called repeatedly for withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and the money saved from that action spent on improving Homeland Security and better equipping First Responders to terrorist attacks. Is this an admission democrats have no interest in "preventing" terrorist attacks but want a better response when we are attacked? Is this an admission democrats are perfectly willing to have Americans attacked and killed in the US so long as First Responders are there to limit the carnage? Is this an admission democrats would sit back and wait for America to be attacked, then respond?

---

Democrats have consistently said that we need to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission something Republicans have been slow moving on. I think you're premise is wrong, convenient for your perspective, and indicative of how you wrongly interpret Democrats.

quote:

---

Democrats have obstructed the Presidents attempts to find, track, subvert, thwart, capture and kill terrorists...before they can attack the US and US citizens.

---

Ridiculous. That's an absurd statement, and as the NIE recently showed the terrorist networks have grown under Republican leadership. Blaming Democrats will get you nowhere. You've had the Presidency and the Congress, and you're trying to tell us that Democrats haven't allowed you to pursue terrorists? I don't buy that for a second, and no one in their right mind would.

quote:

---

"Making America safer" isn't going to cut it come election time.

---

I certainly hope so.

That's all I have time for, and it was prehaps futile to have even gone this far, but sometimes people need to see just how skewed things come out when you say them.

posted October 10, 2006 09:20 AM            

Build the infrastructure
Train Iraqi troops
Get the factions together
blah, blah, blah, blah

Combined with attempts at congressional resolutions, TV interviews, press releases and press interviews to...cut and run out of Iraq and leave it to the terrorists.

And here you are doing exactly what I knew democrats would do. Attempt to spin bullsh*t instead of providing a detailed plan to defeat terrorists and terrorism.

Bullsh*t IS the democrat plan...to win an election but democrats have no plan whatsoever to defeat terrorists and terrorism.

Surrender is NOT a plan for victory over murderous Islamic terrorists and terrorism. Cut and Run is surrender. Advance to the Rear is surrender. Redeploy is surrender.

There are few democrats who do not have that "surrender gene", Joe Lieberman being one such democrat. Democrats are attempting to purge Joe Lieberman from the democrat party.

Now, when are democrats going to level with America and show us their plan to defeat murderous Islamic terrorists..in Iraq, in Afghanistan..and in the rest of the world?

Had the current crop of cut and run democrats been in power in 1941, they would have surrendered US military forces in the Pacific to Japan, turned over all US military bases in the Pacific to Japan...and we would have very soon thereafter been fighting off Japanese attacks and an invasion by Japanese forces on the West coast of the United States.

No more bullsh*t blither and blather from democrats. Time for democrats to level with the American people..about their plan.

posted October 14, 2006 01:20 PM            

The record is replete with their lies, incompetence, cowardice and treason.

The fact is that lies, class warfare, envy and greed, misdirection, hate mongering and surrender to any enemy is the only plan democrats have come up with in the last 40 years.

They just replay their same tired, shopworn plan every election and wonder why they get their ass kicked at the polls on election day.

I've told leftist democrats what their problems are in losing elections. Of course, if I thought there was enough intellectual capacity there to understand it, I would have remained silent on the issues.

There is a certain amount of pleasure to be derived in standing aside and letting the enemies of America spiral down into oblivion as they destroy themselves.

posted October 15, 2006 03:08 AM              

quote:

---

The record is replete with their lies, incompetence, cowardice and treason.

The fact is that lies, class warfare, envy and greed, misdirection, hate mongering...

---

To anyone who is living in the real world and dealing in reality this description better fits the Bush version of Republicans than it does the Democrats.