Thursday, November 03, 2005

Suborning National Security To Politics and Bloodless Coups

Within 12 days of the start of the Afghan War against Taliban and Al Qaida in 2001, I noted a trend that continues today: largely that the Democrat Party is suborning our national security for political gain. Ted Kennedy was calling Afghanistan a Vietnam quagmire. Many Democrats were publically discussing our military capabilities including number of readily deployable units, type of ammunition, armor, denouncing the strategy and, in the case of hardliners like Kennedy, basically demanding that we prepare for withdrawal from Afghanistan because they truly expected us to go the way of the Ruskies.

Iraq went the same way and then more, with the Democrat leadership initially supporting the effort and then trying to distance themselves by claiming they were duped. Followed up by putting Michael Moore in the President's box and the DNC Presidential Convention which said, without a word spoken that could then be linked back to an individual that would then have to explain their vote, that they endorsed the out right propaganda of Michael Moore's F911. This coupled with Kerry's incredibly weak "I have a plan", just don't ask to see it since it was the plan on President Bush's desk and he couldn't see it all unless he was elected president, pretty much doomed the Democrats to failure in the 2004 elections.

Prior to the elections, before balloting even began, some Democrats were trying to set the stage for calling the election rigged before it even occured by demanding UN observers during the election. They also hired 10,000 lawyers preparing to dispatch them to polling stations around the country to contest any results. Fortunately, the results were overwhelming enough that the few places that had problems would not have significantly changed the outcome of the election. What they were attempting to do was a better rendition of the 2000 elections where they had hoped to pull off a bloodless coup and have the courts install their candidate as president; an unprecedented move in the history of American politics.

Why would any political party do that in the middle of a war?

Is it really about Iraq?

In recent news, Iran continues to raise the spectre of nuclear brinkmanship by declaring that they will develop nuclear capabilities if they want to, they will use it for whatever means they so desire (but trust them, they won't create nuclear weapons) while threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". Right in the middle of this escalating language after the administration has at least gotten France and Britain to acknowledge that Iran can't be trusted farther than they could throw the Islamist elephants in their backyard, the Democrats demand that the senate goes into a closed session to ostensibly discuss Iraq intelligence and whether anything said or done by Fitzgerald proves any case for calling the president a liar and misleading the country into war. Something that is tenditious on it's face since many Democrat senators are on record for many years before this administration, having read the same intelligence, making the same statements about the danger of Iraq and it's desire for weapons of mass destruction. Clinton spent most of his Presidency making this case every so often when launching attacks on Iraq for failing to meet their UN and ceasefire obligations.

Any person that thinks this President lied or misled the country based on the same information these political yo-yo's had is either lying or "misleading" themselves. Convenient politics. Something that sounds better to the general public every day that it's said because it makes them feel better about wanting to abandon Iraq and the Iraqis to the very same people who attacked us or had been murdering them these many years. If it wasn't about public opinion, the Democrats wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So, here we are, in the middle of a war and Iran is making much more serious sabre rattling noises than North Korea could ever make and the Democrats pull this stunt in hopes of further weakening the administration with body blows while they look for the knock out punch. What gives? Is it simply about trying to position themselves for the 2008 election? Are the Democrats that superficial that they would suborn national security for political gain? Or, isn't that what they've been doing all along? Is this a long term strategy? For instance, aside from trying to set up a 2008 administration, are they laying the foundation for their own foreign policy?

We already know that the Democrats now see Iraq as a civil war between Muslim Sects which we should not interfere in, much like their idea of the Vietnam war. Pull back and let the different elements duke it out. It's much easier to deal with a state than an unstable warring population. Wait to see who wins and then create a macro policy to deal with that state. In the mean time, they would revert back to the fly swatting technique against terrorism and hope that the intelligence agencies could help stave off internal attacks until a Salafi/Islamist state emerges (or doesn't). Then deal with whatever "reasonable" entities exist within the government. If necessary, plan for war with a state, not with an insurgency. State on state wars are always easier to prosecute. On the other hand, maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran would be able to exert pressure on such a state? That's if the resulting bloody civil war doesn't explode the entire ME. If you think it's bad now, wait to see what happens if we pull out before stability, security and significant reconstruction can occur.

And, while they're at it, if they can make the administration weak enough, they maybe able to force them to follow the Kerry plan, announced during his campaign, to pay off Iran with lightwater reactors and uranium as long as we can monitor their activities (which, during that ill fated campaign, Iran already rejected; but hey, give'em a brownie point for trying). In the mean time, maybe Iran will actually arrest and extradite Al Qaida members currently vacationing inside their borders? Probably not, since Iran is about as trustworthy as a cur dog with rabies. Are we supposed to trust a country still run by the same people that kidnapped our citizens, held them for 449 days; provided money, training and assistance to Hizbollah who blew up the Marine barracks in Beruit, kidnapped and killed American citizens throughout the middle east, doesn't know a "truce " or "ceasefire" from rocket launches,; murders dissidents and journalists to hide their secrets; hangs teenagers for holding hands or gays for being gay or stones people for having sex outside of marriage (unless it's some mullah or politician having sex with boys and girls as young as nine or running a prostitution ring - obviously approved by Allah); provided direct aid, training and materials to terrorists who blew up the Khobar towers; kidnaps British soldiers from Iraq waters; supplies weapons and money to Shia and Sunni insurgents alike to foment on going war in Iraq; provides shelter, training, materials and financial aid to Al Qaida; promotes terrorism in general; wouldn't know a legitimate election if it hit them in the face; creates "suicide squads" with plans to attack the United States and Western entities; threatens to wipe Israel off the map and declares their policy to become a nuclear power in the Middle East with the hopeful potential of creating the Islamic Caphilate before the Salafists do considering they see the Salafists as proxies that can be disposed of at a later date when they have all the weapons, money and power. Well, like I said, at least it would be a state we are dealing with and not a bunch of little crack pots with their turbans tied on to tight. Or, does anybody really believe that Iran will toss away their proxies so fast before they've totally taken over the ME and destroyed the US?

Yep, those Democrats sure know how to pick'em. I would just like to let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi know that there's a fourteen year old kid down on third street that will hold their keys and watch their car, insuring that it will be there with all it's parts intact, when they come out of the crack house. Don't mind the cigarette in his mouth, the gun in his belt or the gang signs he's throwing to his homies.

One other note, I sure hope the Democrats have a better energy policy than they've let on considering the entire oil consuming world will soon be held hostage by a nuclear Iran, quasi-Communist Russia and crazy Venezualan Castro wannabe. These are the three major oil producing regions. Any chance the Democrats will stop shitting all over themselves and the country's security long enough to make some unified statement denouncing these entities and their plans? Probably not since their major foreign policy plan consists of:

1) Unbuckle Iran's pants
2) Drop to knees
3) Wipe ass with alchol swab
4) Kiss ass until the mullahs squeal like a pig (or, preferrably, some other non-offense animal in the name of multi-culturalism)
5) Giggle when the mullah's tell them they have a pretty mouth
6) Repeat until a nuclear flash burns the image from their eyes
7) Follow same instructions for all other countries that even fart like they want a nuclear weapon.

In case of an emergency:
1) Break glass
2) Put on balls
3) Send a tomahawk cruise missile into empty terrorist camps or drug factories in some podunk country that couldn't threaten the nation with a fly swatter.

Warning: Balls may shrivel within hours of use

So, while everyone is destracted with Plame Games, closed door sessions and battles over Supreme Court nominees, the world is going to hell in a hand basket and the Democrats like that. They want to return to the good ol' Clinton days where everyone plays nice and pretends not to notice the big, fat nuclear weapon in the room.

While I'm tarring and feathering politicos, I really want to know when the administration and the "majority" Republican party are going to pull their heads out of their asses and start acting like they have a majority instead of a bunch of punch drunk boxers who can't figure out why the audience is booing while they stand in their corner and piss in their spit bucket. Talk about a bunch of wieners. I haven't seen this many since my tour of the Oscar Meyer factory.

What I find interesting is the inability of the Republicans to figure out the Democrat strategy. I recall the many boos and hisses about the lack of a plan I noted above in Kerry's campaign. It's a killer during elections, but in the off season, they don't have to do anything. All the major plans and bills are presented by the Republicans and all they have to do is block. No political risk. Suggest nothing, risk nothing. Tie the Republicans up on the ropes and rap their arms around them. Throw in a few body blows and a jab or two to the jaw and watch them dance around until they're exhausted. Then, 2008, knock out punch. All they have to do is hold on to the title match.

The thing that defeated them in 2004 turns out to be a winning strategy. You can almost smell a Democrat president and equally split congress from here. The Republican coach is waving the white towel right now.

Maybe the idiot coach will explain to the brain damaged Republican boxers that they can break away from the ropes and throw off the arms if they actually get out in front of a few things like Iran (foreign policy is still their strong poing), energy policy and, gasp, some fiscal responsibility? Coburn is in the corner screaming "fiscal responsibility" and they're still weaving and ducking without throwing a blow.

Get ready for the bloodless coup of 2008 and a future that is sure to have a nuclear Iran, a real Vietnam/Iraq when we withdraw forces and money and a new period of Islamist terrorist expansion across the globe.

Doesn't the future look rosy?

No comments: