The LA Times Fires Back At Democrats
Ron Brownstein is unimpressed by the battle plan for 2006 and 2008 laid out by the Democrats. And can you blame him? Here is the heart of the argument he has. (Hat-Tip: Captain Ed.)
Sharpening their election-year message, leading Democrats on Wednesday released a plan that promised to strengthen America's security but offered few details about how they would achieve their sweeping goals.
On Iraq, the plan — echoing language recently approved by Congress — said Democrats would "ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition … with Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
But it established no timetables, or targets, for reducing the U.S. military commitment there.
The Democrats also pledged to rebuild the military, "eliminate" terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, improve domestic security, free America from reliance on foreign oil by 2020 and pressure Iraq's feuding political factions to reach consensus on a national unity government.
The agenda "will take America in a new direction, one that is tough and smart," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
The plan, dubbed Real Security, is part of a Democratic effort to clarify the party's message for voters before the November midterm elections by releasing a series of policy statements. Democrats previously issued a lobbying reform plan.
By focusing on national security policies before detailing their ideas on traditional party priorities such as healthcare or education, the Democrats signaled their desire to neutralize an issue that had been President Bush's core political strength since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But the Democratic plan provoked a coordinated flurry of counterattacks from leading Republicans. In statements and interviews, GOP officials charged that Democrats had belied their tough talk by challenging Bush on some national security issues, including his approval of a domestic surveillance program that operates without obtaining court warrants.
"Their behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do," Vice President Dick Cheney said in a radio interview.
The veep is correct. What they are preaching now is wholly inconsistent with the previous ideas and actions. They have called for a retreat from Iraq, proclaiming that all done there was for naught. They are trying to tie the hands of the president, albeit ineptly so, in dealing with the surveillance of our enemies. And like John Kerry, many Democrats have been voting against the necessary funding for the war. So, for them to pull a 180-degree turn--a veritable about-face--on the war is impractical. This is sloganeering at its worst, and I am sure they are crossing their fingers that America will bite.
The other thing I noted missing in their plan, as Mr. Brownstein and Captain Ed pointed out, is that there is no talk regarding what will be spent, and what it will be spent on. An increase in special forces, while commendable, is not the full answer to the war. There must be other steps made in the war than sheer manpower. Furthermore, if the Democrats are considering using special operations soldiers like front-line fighters, that is a mistake.
Our special warfare community is our first line of defense, but they are highly trained and specialized in certain fields. You do not waste their talents and skills as front-line fighters. And what else will they spend that money on? I heard a news report this morning about a new 700 ton bomb we will be testing soon in Nevada. The bomb's specific use? Why, it would be used to bust through deeper, more reinforced bunkers in the GWOT. Will the Democrats continue to fund a weapon like this, or will it go the way of the B-2 Spirit project?
The Democrats strategy, while filled with slogans and talking points, does little to define what they believe in, and their moves to make America better in the coming years. This little press release from them regarding their plan is a farce. They do not have the recent history to back this promise up, and they actually have more points regarding the GWOT that should make America wary of trusting them to lead in the years to come. This is obviously an attempt by the Democrats to combat the debating that will arise this election year over their commitment to winning the GWOT. If this is what they have, then the GOP is going to beat this party like a bongo drum.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM:
Oh yes, this will instill confidence in the Democrats for this election season. I know it is petty, but it is still amusing. Nothing says "Trust Us" more than Nancy Pelosi enthusiastically holding up a "Real Security" packet upside down for the cameras. LOL.
Ron Brownstein is unimpressed by the battle plan for 2006 and 2008 laid out by the Democrats. And can you blame him? Here is the heart of the argument he has. (Hat-Tip: Captain Ed.)
Sharpening their election-year message, leading Democrats on Wednesday released a plan that promised to strengthen America's security but offered few details about how they would achieve their sweeping goals.
On Iraq, the plan — echoing language recently approved by Congress — said Democrats would "ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition … with Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
But it established no timetables, or targets, for reducing the U.S. military commitment there.
The Democrats also pledged to rebuild the military, "eliminate" terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, improve domestic security, free America from reliance on foreign oil by 2020 and pressure Iraq's feuding political factions to reach consensus on a national unity government.
The agenda "will take America in a new direction, one that is tough and smart," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
The plan, dubbed Real Security, is part of a Democratic effort to clarify the party's message for voters before the November midterm elections by releasing a series of policy statements. Democrats previously issued a lobbying reform plan.
By focusing on national security policies before detailing their ideas on traditional party priorities such as healthcare or education, the Democrats signaled their desire to neutralize an issue that had been President Bush's core political strength since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But the Democratic plan provoked a coordinated flurry of counterattacks from leading Republicans. In statements and interviews, GOP officials charged that Democrats had belied their tough talk by challenging Bush on some national security issues, including his approval of a domestic surveillance program that operates without obtaining court warrants.
"Their behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do," Vice President Dick Cheney said in a radio interview.
The veep is correct. What they are preaching now is wholly inconsistent with the previous ideas and actions. They have called for a retreat from Iraq, proclaiming that all done there was for naught. They are trying to tie the hands of the president, albeit ineptly so, in dealing with the surveillance of our enemies. And like John Kerry, many Democrats have been voting against the necessary funding for the war. So, for them to pull a 180-degree turn--a veritable about-face--on the war is impractical. This is sloganeering at its worst, and I am sure they are crossing their fingers that America will bite.
The other thing I noted missing in their plan, as Mr. Brownstein and Captain Ed pointed out, is that there is no talk regarding what will be spent, and what it will be spent on. An increase in special forces, while commendable, is not the full answer to the war. There must be other steps made in the war than sheer manpower. Furthermore, if the Democrats are considering using special operations soldiers like front-line fighters, that is a mistake.
Our special warfare community is our first line of defense, but they are highly trained and specialized in certain fields. You do not waste their talents and skills as front-line fighters. And what else will they spend that money on? I heard a news report this morning about a new 700 ton bomb we will be testing soon in Nevada. The bomb's specific use? Why, it would be used to bust through deeper, more reinforced bunkers in the GWOT. Will the Democrats continue to fund a weapon like this, or will it go the way of the B-2 Spirit project?
The Democrats strategy, while filled with slogans and talking points, does little to define what they believe in, and their moves to make America better in the coming years. This little press release from them regarding their plan is a farce. They do not have the recent history to back this promise up, and they actually have more points regarding the GWOT that should make America wary of trusting them to lead in the years to come. This is obviously an attempt by the Democrats to combat the debating that will arise this election year over their commitment to winning the GWOT. If this is what they have, then the GOP is going to beat this party like a bongo drum.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM:
Oh yes, this will instill confidence in the Democrats for this election season. I know it is petty, but it is still amusing. Nothing says "Trust Us" more than Nancy Pelosi enthusiastically holding up a "Real Security" packet upside down for the cameras. LOL.
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home