Friday, April 14, 2006

Democratic message on Iran

I watched Hugh Hewitt on a C-Span "Book TV" panel with Fred Barnes (Rep) and Bob Beckel (Dem). The subject was Hugh’s new book, Painting the Map Red. As usual, Beckel was full of criticism of the Bush Administration. Like the moonbats who comment anonymously on my blog, the Democrats are virtuosos in the fine arts of blame and nay-saying.

Unfortunately, they have nothing constructive to say. Who knows what they would do if in power. Howard Dean admits it, saying the Democratic Party does not and should not have any policy positions since they are in the minority. It’s like Rush says, the Dem’s can’t let you know what they really think or they would never win the presidency.

I decided to search the web for a Democratic position on the Iran “situation.” At a Lefty site called AMERICAblog, I found the “Democratic Message on Iran.” Are you ready? Here it is in nine points.

1. George Bush is the wrong man to be launching yet another war.

2. Slow down, we've got ten years.

3. Since we have ten years, we can at the very least wait seven months until the congressional elections this fall.

4. It is ridiculous to consider any congressional resolution on Iran until after the fall elections.

5. There is no reason we need to even go to war until Bush has left office.

6. Bush is the not the president we want exercising the nuclear option.

7. Bush either lied to us, or was unable to determine the truth, about Iraq's WMD program

8. What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?

9. Why is it always us?

I don’t know about you, but this Democratic policy statement gives me confidence. Not confidence that the Democrats will defend America, but confidence that the Dem Party will eventually go the way of the Communist Party USA. These are not serious people.

It’s said here and in the main-stream media that America does not have the military to attack Iran and that a two front war is beyond our capability. When Hugh Hewitt posed this question to Mark Steyn yesterday, Mark’s response was that if that statement were in fact true, then shame on us! Clinton did his best to decimate the military, spending less than 3% of GDP on defense at the low point. Bush has been aggressively rebuilding the military but I do think it needs to be stronger still.

In round figures we now spend about $500B or 4% of GDP on defense. In order to build the strength of the military, I think we should do two things. First, increase all active military salaries by 50%. This might cost an additional $120B. Then I’d recruit an additional 100,000 troops at an additional $30B. The final defense budget would be about $650B or 5% of GDP, still low by historical standards. If we needed more then I can’t think of a more important expenditure of our federal funds.

I wonder if the Democrats would go for it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again Bill is being completely dishonest about the democratic postion. Although I would remind him that Republicans are not all united on security issues. Look at the Ports deal! It's just laughable. He searches the internet and finds the blog that apparently represents democratic thinking and displays this as proof! Sounds a lot like how the Bush administration does it's research, cherry picking to their likeness and then failing miserably after we've lost 2300 Americans and spent hundreds of billions of dollars. See, Bill, likes to "amplify" things because he knows that he is in a losing position. Amplify how good things are going in Iraq, amplify how evil the liberals are, etc etc etc. If you have to amplify, you look desperate, which many conservative ideologues like Bill are. If you want to know what the democrats stand for, start here!

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another thing, why is Bill constantly referencing Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt, as if they are experts on military affairs! Why don't you reference actual military people who are actually serving in the "military". Oh, but Hugh Hewitt claims to be at the forefront in the war on terror, comparing his situation in the Empire State Building with a reporter based in Baghdad. Chickenhawkery run amok!

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gen. Zinni Comments
Zinni suggested a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky

Zinni said, "Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be ove."

Zinni said, "The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism."

Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of reports this weekend saying that the administration is seriously considering military action against Iran, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts

I'll take this over Hugh Hewitt any day

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If, as Ahmajinedad said today, Isael will soon be "annililated" like a "dead tree eliminated by a single storm," the Democrats will have no choice but to agree to a much larger Armed Forces, as we will be in the middle of WWIII.


6:46 PM  
Blogger pappy said...

As a retired military member and the father of a marine. We both don't have much regard for Zenni. Plus you need to remember Iran is not a arab nation and the arab world also needs to worry about Iran.

8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The DEMS scare the living daylights out of me!!! Lets pray that they don't get elected!!


9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

count us in!..we agree, there's no better way to spend our tax money.

K & W

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Rose, for your remarks. You really seem to have a handle on the issues. Thanks,

5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.

7:23 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home