View Full Version : Just Why Democrats Are ‘Dangerous’ When It Comes To America’s Defense

10-25-2006, 10:52 AM
More cut and paste. I am a major fan of Dr. Sowell and the type of person I would like to as speaker of the house. Don't wake me up I can still dream.

Thomas Sowell, the distinguished Stanford scholar, wrote on this page a week ago that there’s a difference between the major parties: “The Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous.” We’d like to take this opportunity to elaborate on his second point.

We and our allies are in a serious global war against fanatical, determined Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America and the free world. Their stated objective is to kill all the Americans they can, eliminate Israel, control and enslave women, and in time overpower and rule with an iron fist nations from Spain to the Far East. They intensely hate our freedom and successful way of life.

While Democrats in Congress always assert they “support our troops,” their political policies and actions have continually undermined our nation’s fight to win the war on terror and defend America. Here is their national security record:

1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists’ phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists’ money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats’ retreat and defeat plan.

Think that’s bad? Here’s the Democrats’ national defense record for the last 40 years:

A. Democrat President Johnson misjudges the Gulf of Tonkin incident, pursues the Vietnam War until a liberal CBS TV announcer thinks we’re losing and says we should quit. So we quit and lose. The victorious communists then kill 2 million innocent civilians.

B. Democrat President Jimmy Carter during the Cold War withdraws U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter doesn’t like his human rights treatment of Soviet spies in prison. The shah is overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns, seizes power and creates an Islamic nation. Opponents are killed, the idea of suicide bombers is introduced to the PLO, and Iran’s oil wealth is used to spawn and support Hezbollah, a terrorist militia that killed 241 Marines in a Beirut bombing and that lately attacked Israel. Iranian radicals storm our embassy, taking 52 American hostages for 444 days. Carter fails in an amateurish attempt to rescue them. Eight military personnel and eight aircraft are lost in a desert foul-up.

Democrat Carter, self-assured and well-meaning but dangerously naive, was responsible for bringing into power an Iranian Islamic regime that’s now creating nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and blackmail the U.S. and Europe. Iran has further provided weapons and support to Shiite militia and death squads in Iraq and could provide nukes to al-Qaida, with which it has a working relationship.

After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

So Carter’s glaring weakness in dealing with the communists and Iran leads directly to both the current terrorist nuclear threat of Iran and the birth of al-Qaida, a group of mass murderers that would never have been possible if the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev had not been emboldened to invade Afghanistan after seeing an inept, appeasing American president, Carter.

Carter’s ongoing, worldwide damage to America’s future national defense does not end there. In 1994, civilian Carter goes to North Korea and negotiates an agreement that President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright buy into. The North Koreans use our money and help to secretly spend the next six years in researching and building nukes. Deceived again by a worthless piece of paper, Carter becomes America’s Neville Chamberlain.

These Democrat policies and actions were not only incompetent and ineffective in defending the U.S. They also proved to be highly dangerous, creating the greatest threats to America’s future security — a radical Islamic Iran and a North Korea with nukes, either one of which could hand weapons off to al-Qaida killers. And Carter is still out there giving us advice.

Ronald Reagan inherited from Democrat mismanagement a rapidly expanding communist enemy, 12% inflation (highest in 34 years), 21% interest rates (highest since Abe Lincoln was president), a depleted military and a serious energy crisis. Reagan’s motto was “peace through strength,” not peace through retreat, weakness and accommodation.

He kicked communists out of Grenada and defeated them in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. He supported those fighting against communist regimes. He attacked Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, who much later surrendered his nuclear weapons program after America’s military captured the tyrant Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground.

For eight years congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought all of Reagan’s defense and economic policies. They said he was dumb, stupid, too old and a warmonger who was going to start WWIII with the Soviet Union. Democrats were proved wrong on nearly every vital Reagan policy. His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic and technological boom, just as George Bush’s broad tax cuts have done, creating millions of new jobs.

In the end, the Reagan-Bush administration defeated the 70-year-old Soviet Union, and communism disintegrated on the ash heap of history under Republican Reagan’s relentless pressure and determination to build a missile defense system to make the Soviet nuclear arsenal obsolete.

The present terrorist threat to our security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s, after Democrat Clinton was elected in November 1992. In February 1993, terrorists bombed New York’s World Trade Center. In October 1993 two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. In response, Clinton withdrew our forces.

In January 1995, Philippines police uncovered a plot to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean. In June 1996, Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi and wounding 372 others.

In February 1998, bin Laden declared “war on America,” saying the murder of any American anywhere on the earth was the “individual duty” of every Muslim. In August 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. In October 2000, 17 U.S. sailors were killed when al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

According to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and head of the agency’s bin Laden unit, the 9/11 Commission report confirms that the Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get the al-Qaida leader, but Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke or Clinton simply could not make the decision to act. The CIA knew where bin Laden was and the military had plans, but they were almost always called off at the last minute.

So when presented with 10 specific opportunities, Clinton’s Democrat administration never took any action that was effective or produced any positive result. From Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s to the policies and actions they push today, Democrats haven’t been just weak and ineffective in defending against America’s enemies.

This year, two other forces are feverishly working to undermine this election and our war on terror. One force is made up of elite national media based mainly on the East Coast. On several occasions they have given our enemy vital defense secrets. They also disgracefully report and relentlessly repeat only bad news. Such dishonest journalism confuses and deliberately misleads the American public. The TV networks have lost 50% of their audience and still refuse to change their one-sided news coverage.

The other force is represented by terrorists who are desperately attacking as many people as possible in Iraq in the weeks leading up to our election. They believe they can intimidate us like they intimidated Spanish voters in the wake of the Madrid bombings and affect our congressional election in a way that will result in our quick withdrawal from Iraq. But quitters never win.

As difficult and complex as the war has been, America has a very strong economy — with over 95% of our population employed and 70% owning homes — plus freedom, opportunity and a standard of living that other countries can only envy.

We’ve also been protected against further terrorist attacks by a strong, competent and determined president.

Doc LC
10-25-2006, 11:17 AM
Excellent post, panzer. Unfortunately, many "voters" lack this degree of perspective. My father, an old 'Nam vet, best summed it up. "We can give them money and kiss their a**es, and they're still gonna screw us. But slap a .45 upside their heads and they start playing nice." The Democrats, in general, and Carter, in particular, can't seem to get the idea that one cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. Besides, how can their "democratic ideals" survive if their is no democracy to support them? The traitorous press always screams "freedom of speech" while doing everything they can to undermine the defenders of that very freedom. In order for our ideals to survive, the nation must survive first, and if that means keeping a couple of "international criminals" on the payroll or roughing up a few terrorists, so be it. Do the ends justify the means? Not always, but when the alternative is annihilation, then I see no alternative. As for our "national ideals," well, they are just that, ideals. We will always fall short, as perfection is reserved for the divine, but at least our goal of individual liberty is the highest that any nation has ever aspired to. Are we perfect? No, but we are the best available option. :soap: (sorry for the rant. too much coffee. I think I'm going to go buy a new rifle, now.)

10-25-2006, 12:01 PM
good rant works for me. make sure its a black one with a B. lug on it

10-25-2006, 12:06 PM
Good Post! However as usual, only about 20% of the voters will vote and when they do, many of the same politicians will get voted back in. However, I think that many will vote Democractic or not vote at all. They complain about Iraq, but fail to see or admit that the first elections ever held there had in the range (what I heard) around 90% of voters, voting. We need to change and get off our buts. You can't complain if you didn't vote.

10-25-2006, 12:19 PM
Good Post! However as usual, only about 20% of the voters will vote and when they do, many of the same politicians will get voted back in. However, I think that many will vote Democractic or not vote at all. They complain about Iraq, but fail to see or admit that the first elections ever held there had in the range (what I heard) around 90% of voters, voting. We need to change and get off our buts. You can't complain if you didn't vote.

When I meet someone and they start complaining I ask them did you vote? If they say no I tell them to shutup, I don't want to hear it and tell them they are lousy citizens. I have done this to strangers even. To hell with them. The first time I was old enough to vote was for Rons second term. I have never failed to vote since.

Doc LC
10-25-2006, 01:05 PM
I saw a Bushmaster M-4 in 6.8 SPC. Something new to play with. I'll probably pick it up this afternoon if I don't run across something more interesting. As for voting, well, EARS is absolutely right. It's often said that people get the government they deserve. If we don't exercise the franchise, we get NOTHING. Or worse, we get stuck with someone else's crap. One of the big problems is the defeatist attitude of many voters who feel that the best they can do is choose the lesser of two evils, and unfortunately, that often seems to be the case these days. As a very wise old South Louisiana politician (who is now a resident of the Oakdale Correctional facility) once told me, "There are politicians, and there are statesmen. Statesmen worry about the world their grandkids will inherit; politicians worry about what they can do for themselves right now. The problem with statesmen is that nobody notices them until after they're dead." (this is the same individual who once said that the only way he could lose an election was to get caught with a dead girl or a live boy.) Washington is run by politicians, not statesmen, and that is why we see such a hopeless, "grass is greener" attitude among voters who are supporting the Dems, not because of policy, but because they're seeking some nebulous "change." The only change they'll get after this election is the change left in their pockets from $5.00 a gallon gas and higher taxes. And possibly a forced "change of religion," if we allow the Islamofascists to win in the greater war on terror. Damn, that coffee was strong! :D

10-25-2006, 09:23 PM
i love it!

black campbell
10-31-2006, 03:54 PM
Excellent post.

10-31-2006, 04:13 PM
Well said, panzermk2!

Can you imagine if Kerry the Fairy won the presidential election back in 2004? If he had won it, American would be a laughingstock by now. Fortunately, we have a president who's not scared of these monsters.

I still can't believe that Clinton's secretary of state, Madeline Albright, thought it was a great idea to give Kim Jong Il a basketball with Michael Jordan's autograph on it as a gift for not pursuing nuclear weapons at the time. You know that "Dear Leader" Kim was laughing his ass off over that stupid basketball after that old hag left North Korea.

10-31-2006, 05:26 PM
I'm still working on investigating the various options I have as far as elections go this year. Dems tend to get my vote more often than republicans, but I'm thinking this year neither are going to do too well. Especially when it comes to the big senator race here.

I'm looking at the republican candidate, who is pretty mediocre at best, at least from my perspective. He's got some policies that I just don't agree with at all. Then I look at his opposition, who I agree with on most things...well, at least more than I do the republican option.

She looked almost tolerable, until I saw her voting record. That, and then I turned on the TV and saw her ads -- nothing but attacks. When someone is running nothing but "My opposition did X" ads, it's a pretty sure sign that they don't have anything worthwhile to say about themselves. That alone was enough to make up MY mind.

Looks like I'm voting for a third party this year. Yeah, he won't win, but at least I'm not doing the whole 'lesser of two evils' BS.

10-31-2006, 05:50 PM
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq

This f@ck said this alittle while ago. He did it before and now again. Who the he!! would put these a$$holes in charge again? Somebedoy needs to sho........ Kerry.
And for the newbies around here I have a horse in this race I served in the 3rd and 11th CAV, My wife 82AB. I see according to this sh!t we are baby killers, murders and now STUPID also

10-31-2006, 07:35 PM
I just got done watching a segment of the CBS Evening News. Katie Couric was interview both Mike McCurry, a Democratic strategist who used to be with Clinton, and some woman with the GOP, whose name I forget at this moment, who used to work with the current Bush administration. They were discussing the asinine remark Kerry the Fairy made about our troops.

McCurry said that by tomorrow, people will forget what Kerry said. Well, I hope we don't forget what Kerry said.

To me, Kerry not only shot himself in the foot, but he shot down the chances of a lot of other Democratic candidates with his remark about our troops.

11-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Kerry is nothing but a piece of crap. He and his wife were made for each other. They are always putting their foot in their mouths. His comments made to those kids about education today and his stupid wife's comments about stay at home moms don't really work (something along those lines) offend me to no end, because I was in the military and I am a stay at home mother of 3 under the age of 5. They should of taken him off the stage in handcuffs and shot. But that's just my opinion.

11-01-2006, 01:01 AM
I hope all of the "stupid servicemen and servicewomen" go out and vote as a bloc this coming Tuesday to give elitist liberal snobs like Kerry, Clinton, Feinstein, and others like them a stern message.

11-01-2006, 09:29 AM
Why take him off the stage? Shoot him right on the stage. Leave a sign on his body, "I'M sorry, I was too stupid and uneducated to know the gun was loaded?"

black campbell
11-01-2006, 11:06 AM
Just let him talk...that does more damage to them than anything else. It's why he lost the election. It's why I suspect the Dems aren't going to win back either house (though it might be close.)

11-01-2006, 03:22 PM
kerry's response to bush/republican/democrat criticizm of his remarks (from the washington post):

"I make apologies to no one about my criticism of the President and his broken policy that kills and maims our heroes in Iraq every single day. This pathetic attempt to distort a botched joke about President Bush is a shameful effort to distract from a botched war."

wow...talk about your piece of work...

11-01-2006, 03:48 PM
I dont think anyone who heard it connected that it was ment to be a joke about Bush, I Know I didnt. (its no different than when the chinese govt says study hard or you will go to work the coal mines...its not a bush joke either)

11-01-2006, 10:25 PM
this little song I just came up with is more directed at ILL and from my Illinoiscarry.com forum post . but I thought it to good not to share

sung to the tune of jingle bells,

Oh Rino smell, ......Rino smell .................. Rino all the way Oh what have we been stuck with this november day HAY!

11-02-2006, 07:26 PM
kerry doesn't need a guard to protect his/her body i think he needs one for his mouth

Evan Stevens
11-07-2006, 02:43 AM
Bush got better grades than Kerry. It is something subliminal in his mind that he hates service men and women. He has made several rediclious comments over the years. He was on a late show and said he could go to 1600 Pennsylvania and shot the bird, meaning President Bush. But he wants to take our guns. The liberal media covered up this one though.