Deaniac Democrats And National Security

by J.B. Williams
Saturday, August 26, 2006

In this Canada Free Press article, Mr. Williams hits it out of the ballpark with regard to the Democratic Party's leadership and our national security needs. Chairman Howard "Mad, Mean, Screaming Machine" Dean, is caught with his mouth unzipped again when he claims:

"Democrats have been playing defense for too long. Over the past few months, though, something has shifted. When it comes to national security, Democrats are playing offense for a change -- and it's working."

Yes indeed. The Democratic Party has been offensive for quite some time now, but it isn't working, for them at least. But it has worked out well for the Republicans. Mr. Williams goes on:

"According to Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, We have a fundamentally different vision for our security than the Party of Bush." This is a true statement. Today's Democratic Party most certainly does have a fundamentally different vision for our nation's security. They have a different vision of what security is, and a very different vision of how to achieve it.

You can get these fundamentally different visions by using peyote or LSD laced hashish. It all depends on how you want to achieve national security, by having your your bong or your table lamp tell you how to do it.

In his August 24th communique to the drooling zombie core of his fledgling party, Dean pronounced, "We're strong, we're right, and the people know it." Now honestly, Democrats are known for many things in recent years, sex candals,over-taxing, over-spending, over-reaching and over-stating among them. One thing they have never been known for is strong national or international security views, quite the contrary.

How about under-achieving (Nagin and NOLA), under-funding (DoD) and under-handed (emasculating federal intelligence gathering agencies)?

Liberals and their press say their polls indicate a growing distrust in Republicans and increasing trust in Democrats by default, on the subject of national security and the war on terror. Is it true? ... Obviously, the majority of Americans have never been polled and won't be until November. But are the mainstream samplings an accurate view of things to come in November?

The question that needs to be asked is how accurate have these polls been in the past? The answer? Not very. The Dummiecrats have been misled by their own polls in the past two elections. Because their self-serving polls had no basis in reality and they in fact lost the elections, there were cries of fraud throughout many cities where they imagined they were going to win.

The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll says that when it comes to the war on terror and national security, 55% approve of the Bush administration and 43% disapprove. This is hardly a glowing endorsement of the Deaniac Democrats national security plan, especially after five years of constant attacks on every Bush administration security policy decision.

Ah, what Democratic security plan? You must be referring to the one where we run with our tail between our legs from the lords of terror. Yah, that'll work.

Dean points out his set of "facts", "The President's foreign policies have failed. Iraq is sliding into civil war. Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than they were five and a half years ago. And the Taliban continues to present a threat in Afghanistan."

That the GWoT is going to last longer than we'd like is a given. So did WWII. But we stuck it out in the face of high combat loses (the Axis Powers lost a lot more and so are the terrorists) and defeated our enemies. After all, we didn't sneak off and bomb Tokyo harbor.

I can only assume that he is referring to Bill Clinton here as "The President" whose policies failed in this statement since it was Bill Clinton who failed to confront international terrorism for eight years during countless attacks on US interests, who sold nuclear technology to China and North Korea and allowed European nations to profit from keeping the murderous Hussein regime in business in Iraq as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were dozed into mass graves all over the desert.

Thus begins the drum roll of ignominy that is Clintoon's legacy. Let's enumerate the "successful" military exercises of the Clintoon administration:
1) Operation Won Ton Bomb - blowing up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (1999);
2) Operation Straphanger - destroying a Serbian commuter train (1999);
3) Operation Heroic Headache - bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory (1998) on the eve of Clintoon's impeachment vote;
4) Operation Strip & Wax - killing the night janitors in an Iraqi military intelligence building with precision guided munitions (1996);
5) Operation Who Me? - Indonesia, with a record of mass murder having killed perhaps 200,000 out of a population of 700,000 in its invasion and occupation of East Timor, received approval for the purchase of F-16 fighter planes and other assault equipment (1994);
6) Operation Incompetent Commander - Blackhawk Down, Somalia (1993).

Despite the well known fact that Iraq remains the only central front in the war against international terror, Democrats see Iraq as completely unrelated to the war on terror. Innocent Iraqi citizens, the Bush administration and most Americans disagree of course, though none of these folks participate in mainstream polls apparently.

I have often wondered why I never get a call for one of these polls. The way the dems and their accomplices in the MSM are constantly throwing poll numbers around you'd think that these pollsters would be tackling us in the streets.

Finally, Dean lays out his plan for national security in as much detail as he can muster. "Democrats are going to reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world." But retreat is their plan for Iraq. Claim victory and pull out,

According to the Deaniacs that's the smart thing to do.

....leaving the Iraqi people in a vacuum of terror at the hands of Syrian and Iranian born terrorists referred to by Democrats as "civil insurgents". Anyone who has ever talked directly to Iraqi citizens knows that this policy change is their greatest fear.

And that sure is tough.

As for the Middle East, the Middle East began to spin out of control under Jimmy Carter some thirty years ago. It was left to fester and grow into an international threat with global reach under Bill Clinton. China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran became more dangerous throughout the 90's and Bush walked into that hornet's nest in January of 2001, greeted eight months into a new administration with the events of 9/11. To tell this story any other way is an outright lie.

Political victory is the sole concern of the Deaniacs. It is the complete fulfillment of their twisted, narrow dreams. Political victory provides them with the affirmation of their strategy that justifies the lies and deceit used to achieve "success." As far as realizing real strategic gains and strengthening national security, the Deaniacs rely on the MSM to cover the stench of their dismal failures with silence.