Democrat Defense Policy

[jgaffney]

This is interesting.

Link

Watch the video, then tell us how safe you feel.

[saunterelle]

Ah, finally a more reasonable approach to foreign policy and defense! I would feel much safer without so many nukes around.

[mrroqout]

So ......

In a nutshell B. Hussein Obama "IF" elected President.

"Will Lube America Up Real Good" ..........."Bend Her Over"...."And Prepare For Chinese And Russian Insertion"......"and anyone else who may want to take advantage of us"...."But I HOPE no one will mess with us". (quote "may" not be accurate but close enough)


Cause you know "HOPE" is all you need. Forget defenses...HOPE will save us!


That is all.

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle sez...

I would feel much safer without so many nukes around.

So would I. However, how would you deal with regimes like Iran or North Korea, who feel that it is their right to develop nuclear arms and sell them to their friends?

Feelings don't count in a world where there are people that hate us for the freedoms that we enjoy. A mushroom cloud does not discriminate between liberals - oops, I mean "progressives" - and conservatives. Everyone gets crisped.

[mrroqout]

Jun 25, 2008 11:56:36 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Ah, finally a more reasonable approach to foreign policy and defense! I would feel much safer without so many nukes around.

Right because you spend 24/7 - 365 worrying about Nuclear Holocaust..I know I know....

[jgaffney]

Sen. Obama continues to refine his defense policy the closer he gets to the general election. I guess his MoveOn.org-motivated "Get Out Now" message doesn't poll well once you get outside the Rabid Left. Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal writes:

The presumptive Democratic nominee set off media firecrackers last week by hinting at further refinements to his strategy for withdrawal. Previous strategies include his January 2007 call for a complete withdrawal by March 2008, followed by his March 2008 call for a complete withdrawal by July 2010, or 16 months after he takes office.

Now Mr. Obama tells us that the 16-month timeline is contingent on (1) "[making] sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable" (my emphasis), and (2) the opinion of "the commanders on the ground." Also in question is the size of the "residual force" that the Illinois senator envisions for Iraq after the bulk of U.S. forces is withdrawn. Will it be an embassy guard, plus some military advisers and special-ops forces? Or, as suggested in a March paper by Colin H. Kahl, who runs Mr. Obama's working group on Iraq, an "overwatch force" of between 60,000 and 80,000 soldiers?

Mr. Kahl's paper, which was written for the moderately leftish Center for a New American Security, is not an Obama campaign document. Nor has it been publicly released,(it is now) though it was reported on by the New York Sun's Eli Lake. But it offers a useful window into what serious Democratic policy wonks think is a workable U.S. strategy for Iraq in the next administration.

Titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl presents a middle way between the extremes of "unconditional engagement" – basically, the Bush administration's approach – and "unconditional redeployment," which is, or perhaps was, Mr. Obama's recipe.

On the latter point, Mr. Kahl warns that unconditional redeployment "is insufficient to encourage political accommodation because it offers no 'carrot' to groups that would prefer not to accommodate or assurances to those who fear abandonment. It also risks . . . driving the Sunnis back to the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq, reigniting sectarian violence and regional tensions."

Note well: That's the view of an Obama adviser on the original Obama plan.

Mr. Kahl's own preferences track closely with those of Gen. David Petraeus, who introduced the phrase "overwatch" in congressional testimony last September. It would involve the rapid withdrawal of three combat brigades, an emphasis on "mentoring and monitoring" Iraq's Security Forces, continued U.S. pressure on Iraq's sectarian leaders to come politically to terms, and a round of regional diplomacy. Still, as many as 80,000 troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2010 in Mr. Kahl's plan, or halfway into the next administration. How much longer till those troops are withdrawn? Two years? Twenty?

How much longer will the professed anti-war zealots of the Democrat Party continue to support this man as he continues to backpeddle from the positions that bought much of his support in the first place?

[The New Guy]

Jun 25, 2008 11:56:36 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Ah, finally a more reasonable approach to foreign policy and defense! I would feel much safer without so many nukes around.

sorry, but you definitely deserve a smiting for that one.

you still think that obam will say the magic words and all the bad guys will throw down their arms, eh? silly.

[jgaffney]

Apparently, Sen. Obama is beginning to believe his own rhetoric. The AP has this:

Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.

[/size]
Oh, Lordy, Lordy! We are saved! By sheer dint of his personality, Obama now believes that he will bring Ahmadinejad to the table!

I think the young and inexperienced Senator, who has only been in the Senate for three years and has spent two of those years running for president, is in for a rude awakening.

[saunterelle]

It makes me feel a lot safer knowing that Obama will be a lot more careful than Bush was or McCain would be. Having Sam Nunn as his VP wouldn't hurt either.

[jgaffney]

Wouldn't it be nice if that was all it took? Saunterelle, I don't think you've been following the news that has been coming out of Iran for the last 3-4 years. Basically, Iran has resisted every attempt by the West and by the UN Security Council to constrain their nuclear program.

I have posed this question to you before, but now I would like an answer:

Do you believe Ahmadinejad, who is sitting on millions of barrels of oil, oil that would generate billions of dollars for his impoverished country, when he says that the millions of dollars that he is spending on nuclear development is for peaceful purposes? Do you believe that, even though Ahmadinejad calls America (that would include you) the "Great Satan" and calls for wiping Israel off the map, he would never use nuclear weapons on the missiles he just tested last week?

Consider yourself smote.

[The New Guy]

all our troubles will be over when barry takes office.

i can see him now, riding his unicorn across a rainbow between two clouds of pink ice cream, tossing out handfuls of sparkly love dust and all the world is a marshmallow dream..........aaaaaaah yesssssss!

[jgaffney]

Maliki comes out with a statement that he would like to see American troops withdrawn, and the Left is falling all over him. The American Thinker has this:

Then let's remember that the Democrats have been calling for withdrawal even when doing so would have been a catastrophic setback for Iraqi security. They were calling for a withdrawl even when doing so would have meant a humiliating defeat for the US as we would have abandoned the field of battle to the enemy while under fire. They were calling for a withdrawal even when doing so meant that thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of Iraqis would have been butchered in unrestrained sectarian violence. They were calling for a withdrawal even when al-Qaeda was at the heighth of its power in Iraq, controlling wide swaths of the country and was poised - once we left - to make a bid for carving out an independent duchy that would have given them shelter and protection to mount operations worldwide. They were calling for a withdrawal even when Shia militias were roaming the streets murdering innocent Sunnis while the poorly trained and corrupt Iraqi police and army looked on and did nothing.

They were calling for a withdrawal even as President Bush changed our counter-insurgency strategy and put General Petreaus in charge of a surge in US troop numbers - a surge every major Democrat including their nominee for president screamed at the top of their voices would be an utter, total, and complete failure. They were calling for a withdrawal even when the surge began to work and violence was dropping. They called for a withdrawal even when they called Petreaus a liar to his face and that he was "cooking the books" on the falloff in violence in Iraq. They were calling for a withdrawal - and saying the war in Iraq was "lost" or a "failure" - as late as the beginning of this year. They were calling for a withdrawal even as the Iraqi government slowly and painfully began to move toward political reconciliation, denigrating these efforts as "too little too late" while predicting that once the extra troops associated with the surge went home, the violence would pick up again.

They have opposed, obstructed, denigrated, mocked, accused the military of lying, predicted disaster again and again and again, all the while calling Maliki a "puppet" and the Iraqi government a joke.

I guess we should simply forget their previous stupidity and call them geniuses now?

I think that the entire Democrat platform is predicated on the concept that people don't remember yesterday, let alone 4 years ago. I think the Democrats basically think you are too dumb to keep track of what they have been telling you.