Theodore's World: For Them It's April Fools Day 24/7

« CAIR April Fools-This April 1 | Main | Remember The 5 D's »

April 01, 2006

For Them It's April Fools Day 24/7

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.

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 They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

In an attempt to turn the tide of public perception that Democrats are weak on national security issues, Democrat leaders issued a national security policy statement. Hoping to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists everywhere and inspire voters in the midterm election, they promised a fresh approach, "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," as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid echoed this sentiment, saying, "We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer." Sounds pretty good so far. What do they propose? Well, that's where there's a teeny problem. See, they don't offer specifics. They say they want to capture Osama bin Laden, but they don't say how. They do, however, suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to the payroll.

And what do they suggest for Iraq? They want a troop withdrawal, but they don't say when they want it done. But they do say, "We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U. S. forces."

Gee. I feel safer already.

Guys, there's a reason why Democrats are seen as weak on national security. It's because they are weak on national security! Top to bottom, Democrats have been openly hostile towards our military and national security for decades, and that's not something that can be overcome with a policy statement. Especially considering their actions speak more loudly than that statement.

Throughout the 80s, which party opposed Ronald Reagan's attempts to beef up the military to defeat the Soviet Union, which would have made us safer? The Democrats.

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, which party had prominent members come out against the war with the chant "no blood for oil"? That would be the Democrats.

After the Berlin Wall fell, which party promptly demanded military spending be cut? Survey SAYS...the Democrats.

Which major political party ran a candidate who wrote a letter stating that he "loathed the military"? Can you say "the Democrats"? I knew you could.

Which party said military service was not the sign of a good President? Say it with me now! The Democrats!

Which party actively sought to discount the military vote in the 2000 election during the Florida recount? You spell it D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T.

Which major party has undermined the war plan in Iraq by stating the Commander In Chief broke the law, lied to get us into war, and is only seeking to make his rich donors richer? And the answer is... why, it's the Democrats!

Which major party ran a candidate who said the Iraq war was "the wrong war at the wrong time" in spite of the fact that same candidate supported going to war with Iraq in 2002? I'll take "Democratic Party" for $1000, Alex.

Which party speaks with pride about the number of people in their ranks who served our country, but call George W. Bush a draft dodger who went AWOL from the Air National Guard? The password is "Democrat."

Get the picture?

But let's get beyond the past and look at the actual problems with the proposal the Democrats have laid out for us. First, the idea to double the number of special forces and spies to get Osama bin Laden is odd, considering what the Democrats have said regarding our force levels in Iraq. People like Rep. John Murtha have said repeatedly that we didn't bring enough troops to beat back the insurgents, and Democrats both at the grassroots level and the national level have echoed this sentiment. And they've all commented on lower-than-expected recruiting levels, which may or may not be happening in all branches of the military.

Riddle me this, Batman. If we don't have the troop numbers in Iraq to win, where are the soldiers and spies going to come from? And wouldn't those troops be more effectively used in Iraq to fight off the insurgents? This would help to bring the troops home sooner. As far as the spies are concerned, that takes time and training. Are we going to expect the terrorists to put their attacks against us on hold until we get our troops up to speed? I can just imagine Reid or Pelosi making the request: "Yeah, I know you want to kill us because we're infidels, but could you hold off on that until we get our people trained so they can be more effective against you? Thanks. Love ya!"

Now, let's move onto the lack of a timetable to get our troops out of Iraq. This has been an issue Democrats have used against President Bush for quite some time now. Now, when the Democrats unveil their master plan, it lacks a timetable. And for that, I'm sending the DNC a bill for a brand new Irony Meter because mine broke after reading about this fact. It's amazing to me that anyone considers the Democrat "plan" to be a viable alternative to what President Bush is already doing. The Democrats have put out a policy statement full of promises, but lacking in any specifics. I sense John Kerry's hand in this.

More important than the Democrats' lack of a serious plan, though, is the apparent lack of thought put into this policy statement. It should be pointed out that if the Democrat plan sounds a little familiar, it should. It's the same plan Bush has had and promoted since the beginning of the Iraq War. As Joe Biden will tell you, copying off someone else isn't a key to success. Nor does it reflect any serious thought on such an important matter, which is essential to anyone proclaiming themselves to be the ones with the plan for a better future, not to mention the ones who proclaim themselves to be smarter and more in touch than the President.

Posted by Wild Thing at April 1, 2006 01:47 AM


The republicans tend to be too far the other way though - currently, so dedicated to extending and expanding the military that domestic concerns are suffering. How many hundreds of billions have the Afganistan and Iraq wars cost? Thats going on your tax rate. Remember in the last SUTU when Bush promised to reduce government spending due to the very large deficit? He increased military spending, but compensated by cutting everything else - student loan programs, medicare, right down to states having to reduce road-maintinance budgets. His bold plans for a manned mission to mars didn't protect the NASA science budget - thanks to the war, the planned Webb telescope which was going to replace the Hubble is now scaled down, and many smaller science missions canceled completly.

You can argue that democrats do not spend enough on the military. But the republicans, in my oppionion, spend too much.

Posted by: Suricou Raven at April 1, 2006 03:14 AM

"And what do they suggest for Iraq? They want a troop withdrawal, but they don't say when they want it done."

Both parties say that, as well as Bush personally. SOTU again.

Posted by: Suricou Raven at April 1, 2006 03:15 AM

Suricou Raven I disagree, I want our country to spend whatever it takes on our military and also on our Veterans. More is never enough!

The only reason I am sitting here right now able to have a blog and say what I think and feel and post the truth about things is because of our military and our Veterans. Not because of social programs that the dems want to put in motion. Or someone in the media sitting at a desk promoting their liberal agenda from the left.

I notice you are not concerned that cut backs have been done to Veterans for many years. Promises made to them when they were active duty and then not kept once they were no longer active duty. We should be spending money on our Veterans before we have school milk programs and welfare and you name it.

Our military should be highly paid and they are not. To get an added $50.00 for a dangerous mission is bullshit. Lives of our military are worth much more then that.

So I disagree with you and I pray that we have people in power that put our military at the top of the list and our Veterans as well. We owe them more then you realize.

Here is my favorite quote of any quote I have saved , you might want to read it and think about what it is saying..................

Freedom! No Word Was Ever Spoken
That Held Out Greater Hope,
Demanded Greater Sacrifice,
Needed More To Be Nurtured,
Blessed More The Giver,
Cursed More Its Destroyer,
Or Came Closer To Being God's Will On Earth.
And I Think That's Worth Fighting For."
General Omar Bradley

Posted by: Wild Thing at April 1, 2006 09:43 AM

Our guys get paid very little in this fight for our freedom and security. They deserve better then a bunch of power grabbing politicians. What our troops are doing is not just for us,it is for the entire world. Clinton did nothing and Bush is, it's as simple and complicated as that.
My vote will always go for those that back up our military and the Democrats just don't measure up.

Posted by: Wofat at April 1, 2006 11:33 AM

I wish the Democraps would just be honest and say they are against a strong military, and quit this pretense when needed of phony oral support for the military.

And I wish more Repubs would get some starch in their spines and stand up to the Dems, the media and the protestors, instead of weaseling down on the issue of the war and the needs of the military.

And Thank You Wild Thing for your support of vets. Most of these slimy pols of both parties never served in the military in a meaningful manner and they turn on the vets thru the budget by slashing veteran programs. Many times in preference of social spending for the least deserving

Posted by: TomR at April 1, 2006 06:17 PM

Suricou Raven writes like the typical left winger who wants to spend all of the bucks on social programs and when that is not enough tax the producers to give the bums some more of our hard earned money.

Ironically, the democrats used to be know as the "War Party" It was the donks who led us into WW 1 and 11 as well as Korea and Vietnam. Now that the party of Andrew jackson, who was more of a libertarian than a democrat, has been taken over by the socialists it is the "Hate America First" party and appears that its promary objective is to destroy the country and evertthing it stands for,especially working for a living.

Posted by: GUYK at April 1, 2006 08:02 PM

Well Damn
I couldnt say it ant better than you guys already have.

Posted by: Jack Hamilton at April 4, 2006 07:40 AM