The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism

Town Hall ^ | February 23, 2007 | John Hawkins

[highlander_UW]

All points are irrefutable.

[NavyCanDo]

I would have to add a #10 I remember this one I was there. And this single issue turned me into a Republican. (read my profile)

HERE GOES, NUMBER 10
10) The Democrats have a long history of backing away from a fight. Along with the aforementioned Iraq Hostage Crisis, I would add Libya in the late 1970’s when Qaddafi decided to extend the coastal claims of Libya forbidding the American Carrier task force from entering the Gulf of Sidra, waters the rest of the World recognized as being international waters. The Carter government had rescheduled our maneuvers to stay outside the prohibited area. True to form, Carter failed to confront Qaddaffi, even after the siege on the American embassy in Tripoli in 1979. Within months of taking office Ronald Reagan took a stand. He made it clear that American maneuvers would proceed as they always had before Carter. Anticipating confrontation the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Reagan for clear rules of engagement: What should American pilots do if attacked? Do we allow “hot pursuit? Reagan’s answer? “ All the way to the hanger.”

[etlib]

This is a perfect statement of fact summarized nicely in bulletts. I will make a paper copy and carry it around when approached by anyone supporting Her Heinous or Obama.

It may need to be in the mailbox of every home in America in late October of 2008 and perhaps under the windshield wiper of every car.

[stanz]

It may need to be in the mailbox of every home in America in late October of 2008 and perhaps under the windshield wiper of every car.

It should also be piped into every household nightly as a subliminal message.

[etlib]

anytime you confront liberals with facts, they label you ... Of course there have been time when they just stick their fingers in their ears and start chanting, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA." Don't get me wrong, it's always worth trying, just be aware of the possible results.

You need to consider who you are addressing. Many people who appear to be liberal are unaware of the facts, too lazy to think about politics or are traditional Democrats who need to be pulled out of their rut.

The biggest problem I encounter is those who are convinced they are being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by the MSM.

[Billy Jacks blog]

Neither Democrats nor Republicans can win any war against any enemy at any time. We haven't won a war since WW II, and we aren't going to win this one either. The reasons are very simple. The American people will only support a war where no one gets killed. The media will always lie to reinforce the lunatic idea that no one should get hurt in war. Finally, our government officials do not have the character necessary to stand up against the American people and the media and simply do the right thing. If you put these three things together, you get the conclusion with which I began this post--America will never win another war--ever!!! So, let's just bring our soldiers home, protect our own borders as well as possible, and pray that no enemy ever attacks us.

[Richard Axtell]

11) Many Democrats fail to see what all the fuss is about, as they do not believe that there even IS a jihadist/terrorist war directed against the United States and the West in general.

12) Some Democrats do not understand why we should oppose the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist nations like Iran, since we do have them and have actually used them in war. Why should we deny them to other countries? They apparently see no downside in having their own hometowns incinerated.

[Apple Blossom]

Ping.

[driftless2]

If Dems were in power, Bin Laden would still be running his operations with strong support from the Taliban. They're always claiming that the real war is in Afghanistan, but the Dems wouldn't have done anything. Gore would have tried to "negotiate" with the Taliban who would have laughed in his goofy face. And we would have been hit with another 9/11. No Patriot Act, no deplacing hostile Islamo-fascist governments, nothing. Just talk.

[Sergio]

Point taken. However, since I live in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, most people do believe what the MSM feeds them. Sad really.

[MaDeuce]

"And do you know what a Dhimmocratic President would do if we had another terrorist attack and a lot of people died?

1)Blame Bush/Republicans for creating terrorists
2)Do nothing else."

Yes they would do #1 above, but to say they would do nothing else is big time wrong!

The dems in power would attack Americans and not terrorists.

They would attack gun owners in this country in a way that makes Waco look tame. The 2nd Amendment would be suspended indefinitely.

Conservative radio and TV would be shut down as "instigating the foreign terrorists" and "counter to the new American socialist order".

Taxes would be jacked up to unbelievable levels to begin a new "war on terrorism", but the $$$ would be pissed away and used for other socialist ideas.

The dems would secretly try to negotiate a peace with the terrorists and we would abandon Israel ... that you can be sure of.

[Gritty]

Terrific article.

Right on the money!

[bnelson44]

If you are in the military, please sign:

www.appealforcourage.org

[Names Ash Housewares]

Cuz their traitors for all reasonable purposes.

Yeah, I question their patriotism. THEY certainly have given enough reasons to do so.

[clamper1797]

We need to be VERY afraid should RATS take the WH in 08 and look for a nother NUCLEAR 911 to occur.

Then look for open season to begin on Muslims AND their supporters, apologists and protectors

[unkus]

Liberalism is a sickness.

[petercooper]

bttt

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with ... terrorists ...."

For proof of point #8, consider the Air India trial in Canada.

Terrorists bombed Air India flight 182 in 1985 -- killing 329 people.

It took over 20 years to bring the (accused) terrorists to trial. Over $Cdn 130 million ($US 111 million) was spent on the investigation and trial. A special high-tech court house was constructed especially for the trial -- at a cost of millions.

The results? Acquittals for all.

The former Liberal government wanted that to be the end of things. The new Conservative government has launched a judicial inquiry into the investigation and prosecution of the bombers.

[Burr5]

Is post 26 supposed to be sarcasm? If it is, I apologize for what I'm about to say. If you're serious, that is the most pathetic, defeatist anti-military bullshit I've have ever read from anyone pretending to be a "conservative".

[ronnie raygun]

Where the hell are all the Reagan types for 2008? We need some one with big cocoanuts to see this mess the rats are getting us into thru to victory!