Thursday, April 26, 2007

More Campaign Briefs

From the desk of Barack Obama comes this brilliant statement:

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home.”


Wrong, false, not true.

This is a myth. Despite the fact that's what Sen. Obama wants us all to believe, nothing could be further from the truth. Fact is, on the very day the last US soldier leaves Iraq, the war will just be beginning.

“I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future.”


I know many people that are like the Senator.

They opposed the war from the start, they said it would distract us, and they said war was not the answer. They said what they said, and believed what they believed, sincerely (as is their right). But I am noticing that a few are starting to say that that we made this mess and now we should be forced to see it through. (SEE: Michael Ware)

Why?

Because they aren't running for President. They aren't trying to speak unto us, smooth things, because that's what they think we want to hear. They aren't trying to get elected to anything, therefore they are free to talk sense without groups like MoveOn.Org condemning them, and running a candidate against them.


Private jets were used by Dem candidates to get to this evening's debate.

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.


Not one, no one. Nada, nil, none, zero, zilch. All played the lone wolf, tonight. Yet somehow, I am sure that all of them embrace the lion's share of the global warming philosophy, put forth by Guru Al and his merry band of environmentalists.

Now tell me, how can I respect someone that talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk?

8 comments:

A.C. McCloud said...

That was a ridiculous statement to say the least. The collective Dem position is very short-sighted. Richardson wants everyone out of the ME, period. Not sure that includes Afghan, too, but hey why not?

O'Reilly had the former Iraqi Ambassador to the US on his show who kept reminding him the reason we went over there was not to nation-build as much as to protect our regional interests and those of our allies. Had this not been the case I would have been opposed to the war from the beginning. But it's a point seemingly lost on many people, which makes it easier to just leave.

Mustang said...

The attitude among most democrats is an antithesis of what has made our nation a world leader. I can’t think of a single Democrat today who is fit to stand in the shoes of John F. Kennedy – and you may recall that Zell Miller said he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I have no doubt but that Islamacists will be dancing in the streets if the Dems take the White House in 2008. Worse, since the enemy already knows that the Democrats lack courage and integrity, we might expect Iran to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq, and for the Taliban to take back Afghanistan. Of course, this will mean simply that our young men and women who gave up their lives will have died in vain. I cannot think of any worse message to send to our warriors. And the message to the rest of the world? You can’t count on America.

Damn democrats.

Greg said...

I didn't know about the private jets, but I thought of it when Williams asked about what they had done lately for the environment. "Ah, er, um...."

Also, I watched Michael Ware on CNN last night with some surprise. Now he says we need to stay? Seems obvious to me, but he's been saying the opposite for quite some time. He also is advocating abandoning democracy in Iraq, in favor of a strong man who can provide security and services to the Iraqi people. He says this is being considered as plan B if the surge doesn't produce results by the end of the summer. Depressing, but that might be the best short-term solution, actually.

The assumption all the Democratic candidates make is that if we leave Iraq, all our problems will be resolved. And Bush is the one ignoring reality? What a pipe dream. I wish it were true, but the hard truth is that we are STUCK in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Many years.

Also, back to yesterday's thread, it was pretty clear to me (I wonder what others here thought) that all the candidates favor defense over offense in the War on Terror. But some (Richardson, Clinton, Obama, Biden) were eager to say they would order a swift military response to any terrorist attack. So, we'll play defense until we're attacked, then we will lob some missiles. Pre-9/11 thinking.

And final observation from the debate: there is only one true liberal (not counting the wierdo from Alaska) - Dennis Kucinich. He sounds EXACTLY like every liberal I know. Why he does not win any primaries is very confusing.

LASunsett said...

AC,

//O'Reilly had the former Iraqi Ambassador to the US on his show who kept reminding him the reason we went over there was not to nation-build as much as to protect our regional interests and those of our allies.//

This is funny because most that oppose the war only remember the WMDs issue. I remember the reasons as being multi-fold, with WMDs and what the former Iraqi ambassador says as part of it. I understood it to be an accumulation of things.

LASunsett said...

Mustang,

//I can’t think of a single Democrat today who is fit to stand in the shoes of John F. Kennedy – and you may recall that Zell Miller said he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him.//

Maybe Lieberman. But outside of his support for the war on terror, he's still a very liberal Senator. JFK's platform was very similar to the GOP's of today. Tax cuts, pro-capitalist, pro-defense, etc.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//it was pretty clear to me (I wonder what others here thought) that all the candidates favor defense over offense in the War on Terror.//

That would be great except for one thing.

Part of that defensive strategy would have to include the sealing off of our borders to keep those committed to our destruction, from sneaking in across a porous border. Anything else merely constitutes treating it as a law enforcement issue, rather than a national defense issue. And we all know how the Dems feel about open borders, don't we?

All_I_Can_Stands said...

He also is advocating abandoning democracy in Iraq, in favor of a strong man who can provide security and services to the Iraqi people.

A strong man could do the job, but the things he would need to do to get the job done should not be embraced by Ware. Somehow our overly reasonable rules of engagement are questioned frequently, yet a strong man cracking down on the population with a closed fist is better?

Michael Ware needs to go back to drinking. Or maybe that is the problem.

LASunsett said...

AICS

//Michael Ware needs to go back to drinking. Or maybe that is the problem.//

Either that or he's detoxing and incoherent. ;)