Posted on 11/05/2008 6:02:10 AM PST by FreeLuna
Opposed how, precisely?
With his New Tone? His Bipartisanship? His and his minions attacks on people who had the guts to question the national loyalty of the domestic opposition party? [Note how he used the RNC to revoke any monies to be spent on Michelle Bachmann's campaign the last two weeks after her Chris Matthews 'gotcha' segment]
Thank God we conservatives here in Minnesota were able to save her....despite being outspent two or three to one.
But even she followed orders from the Bush/McCain camp to "play" like she was mis-represented. Even though they weren't giving her another dime...since she didn't fit the "New Tone" or "Bipartisan" mold they wanted to impose.
She went along still out of perhaps misguided loyalty. Instead of just boldly quoting the very enemies we know them to be. Destroying their phoney outrage intended for the lamest of the lame unpoliticals in the electorate.
But to that end, to get those unpoliticals...The Best Defense is a good Offense.
I agree. The only thing we can do is try and encourage the remaining GOP Senators to filibuster Obama's judicial appointments. For four years.
By then his economic ruination will oust him and his party. But Constitutional erosion is one-way and forever.
I agree. The only thing we can do is try and encourage the remaining GOP Senators to filibuster Obama's judicial appointments. For four years.
By then his economic ruination will oust him and his party. But Constitutional erosion is one-way and forever.
Fat chance at any filibusters. Susan, Olympia, and Arlen will happily join McCain in defeating such attempts.
First, I don't have to go out of my way to diminish W to make my point that Reagan and Cap Weinberger was far, far far more national security heroes than W ever was or will be. Frankly, you are ignorant. As is proven by your next point:
Reagan ran scared from Beirut. He did little strikes and ran.
First. This proves you are not a conservative, nor a patriot. Second, it again proves your historical ignorance. The Soviet Union had 19,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us, and was threatening to launch a sneak first strike. That was quite a bit larger threat than anything else we faced at the time. And we didn't know who did it. The entire Mideast? Soviet proxies trying to get us to go off half-cocked? We needed to determine who had hit us. We didn't know of the Iranian connections for about 16 months...and it was determined to hold our fire. Not out of "running scared". And we had far bigger fish to fry at the time. We were at war, cold or otherwise, with the Soviets. We needed to keep our Global focus on that.
A mideast war at that moment would have been catastrophic to that overarching mission. We had no comparable national interest in Lebanon at that time. We could not alienate the Saudi's at that time, when they were helping us bankrupt the Soviets.
And we had no shortage of other enemies in the region to focus on...the ones out in the open. And for those, There was no shortage of Reagan's resolve to strike at them.
If Reagan "ran scared"...Tell that to Khaddafy. The man was seriously targetted...and stayed quiet and obsequious until Klinton. Whose gross weakness Encouraged him to do the nuclear proliferation with the Pakistanis.
And, if you could, tell that to the late Yasser Arafat. Reagan hounded him out of the PLA into hiding in "neutral" Morrocco. Only Clinton allowed him to get back on his feet and into the Mideast. And then W protected him when the Israeli's were on the verge of bombing him to smithereens in his HQ.
Let's be clear, W only finally responded when the terrorist hit was beyond evasion. 9-11. I.e., just like Clinton, he also failed to respond to the USS Cole. He and Rice were totally oblivious to Operation Bojinka by Al Queda, although perhaps concealed by the Clinton security establishment, they should have been sounding out for real security warnings...from non-Clintonites.
But Thery weren't. W kept Clintons' FBI and CIA directors. And his Counter-Terrorism guru.
It was ONLY After 9-11 they took some actions. Afghanistan. Iraq. With the mixed results of a tepid challenge on jihadist theology (the "religion of peace") , which was allowed to grow and fester all during these campaigns...not just in Saudia Arabia, but Pakistan and Iran...and even Lebanon. And W has been coercing Israel to abandon the West Bank and give up Jerusalem for all practical purposes. His "two state solution" is laughable, and Khaddafy (in the same speech where he said they were backing Obamal...and with more than words, but $) has called it so.
W is no hawk. He only used a military bequeathed him by Ronald Reagan's defense build-up and R&D. W himself has been horribly lame on any of that. He is a Methodist Liberal. He shows it all the time. He believes more in our unilateral disarmament than Peace Through Strength.
W's war spending has not been rebuilding our armamaents to keep pace, as he depletes them.
W has continued Clinton's dismantlement of the U.S. Navy. Once 600 ships. 348 ships when he took office. Today the U.S. fleet numbers: 283 ships. He retired without any replacement the F-14s. Planes needed for air superiority, against bombers and for cruise missile fleet defense. The F-18 is totally inadequate for these roles. He as well as Clinton, refused to deploy a navalized F-22. He stopped deployment for the USAF of only 185 F-22s. The USAF own Strategic Plans indicated a need for over 580.
Meanwhile China continues to rob us blind of defense tech right under W's nose. From Magnequench to Stealth, and 3Com and its firewalls, etc.
You may well be proved right. The Gang of 14 sure implies such a dreary outlook.
Your arguments continue to be silly.
Yes, Grenada, that was impressive.
Otherwise, the use of American military force was careful to avoid any possible Vietnam scenario. That lame and weak mentality continued with this VP Bush sr. who was afraid to actually remove Saddam.
Bush has re-established American deterrence. By putting tens of thousands of American troops in combat situations around the world, he has re-invigorated our capacity to fight our enemies instead of trading arms for hostages.
Honestly, I love Reagan but I am so tired of the lame hatred people trot out toward President Bush. It is clear there are many conservatives who would happily attack a fellow conservative but never dare challenge bad democrats or liberals.
He totally blew not only the budget but the ton of good will he had for his initial handling of 9/11. I went from being so proud of him to being shocked by the number of things he supported that I felt were not good for this country, like his call for "immigration reform" and letting Mexican trucks deliver goods within the borders of the U.S.
The GOP called me asking for a donation tonight, and I said no, that they helped pave the way for Obama to be elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.