Apr 17 2008
Democrats Demonstrate Why Neither Can Be Commander-In-Chief
I could only stomach a few minutes of the Democrat debate (and only had time to watch the last half, but declined to do so), so take this commentary for what it’s worth. I want to commend the questioning by ABC – it was tough for the two rounds of questions I watched. The questions were well stated and hard, adding to the debacle for the two candidates. In fact the questions inflamed some liberals who have no idea the pressures a president must endure – hard questions being the least of them. See here and here for some of the whining.
It was perfect timing for my interests because I tuned in just when the question of Iraq came up.
So I am posting on the most important question of the day for this nation – what to do about Iraq and all the blood spilt there to bring us this far in defeating al-Qaeda and establishing a democratic ally in the Middle Wast.. I can tell you all I was stunned to see the two candidates declare they had all the answers to Iraq and what anyone else said was of no matter. You could see the arrogance of power running to their heads as they claimed they would surrender Iraq at any cost, and they mean ‘any cost’. I want to emphasize the question so there can be no excuse for the bone-head answers the nation heard last night:
Charlie Gibson opened the topic up with a video question which included: “do the candidates have a real plan to get the troops home … considering what is happening on the ground, how is that going to happen?”
Gibson then adds “Senator Clinton … your campaign manager … was asked “is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq a month, regardless of the realities on the ground” … the answer is yes. So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains we have made, no matter what you are going to order those troops to come home?”.
Clinton doesn’t even blink and says “yes I am”.
You can watch the full answer for yourself below (and here if the link is not working below), but the basics of it are she will not listen to anyone who disagrees with her view that a hasty withdrawal will only force the Iraqis to take on their problems more seriously. There will be no problems, and if there are too bad. For someone who voted for the war this is a devastated show of cowardice. She voted to start this, and after years of getting past challenges and steady progress she is saying “you Iraqis need to fix this mess America started”. And somehow that will enhance our image in the world? Whatever she is smoking she needs to cut back a lot – she is hallucinating.
Barack was not any better, he had the same basic point – I am President, I don’t have to listen to anyone. The military will have to do what I tell them. The little tin dictator was there for all to see, and be really concerned over. The Democrats are saying we don’t care what happens in Iraq, we are going to pull out our troops and show everyone who worked with us and died with us we were unworthy of their sacrifices. There are nations who gave their own blood and treasure to see this through. And all those Iraqis who sided with us and the new government will see a modern vietnam as they are slaughtered by the terrorists who will use the Surrendercrats actions as proof America can be beaten.
And then the world will see a real war between the Islam Fascists and the West. One that will make the last two World Wars look like minor skirmishes. The last thing we need to do is give Bin Laden a victory while his forces are now headed to defeat. To see what would be the result look no farther than Sadr City and Basra – two places in Iraq where there was a power vacuum. Places were Islamo Fascists took over from a weak government presence and you can see where these two Napolean’s are headed.
When leaders isolate themselves from all inputs and take extreme actions, no matter the cost, it is the people who pay for their arrogance. Bush never lied to America (contrary to wild myths from the gullible on the far left). He said he was going into Iraq to stop future 9-11s from any secret or future alliance between al-Qaeda and Saddam (it was not about a clear alliance for 9-11, though that has never been disproved). It is one of his greatest traits. He says what he means and sticks with what he starts until the job is done.
We can take these two Surrendercrats at their word, they will do what they say and turn tail on the growing success in Iraq – no matter how much progress we make under George Bush. Sadly they are not of the same caliber as Bush, they see no responsibility to keep working Iraq as long as the situation is manageable. And right now it is very manageable and about to make a huge turn towards success with the decimation of the Mahdi Army threat. al-Qaeda is clearly on the way out and hopelessly defeated – unless we give them a second chance and run away. These Democrats will not finish what we as a nation started. Not understanding what we got into is not an excuse. Impatience is not an excuse. Elections and vulnerability on being responsible is not an excuse. Failure is not an option – unless your a democrat and then it is “a plan”.
My God these people are dangerously stupid.
She’s going to have a conference with the regional leaders? A conference!
These nations are like wolves over there..and she’s going to have a conference so that they’ll stop doing what they have comitted to.. as if they didn’t know what they were doing?
Call me cynical, but I believe there are those in the democrat party who WANT there to be a big terrorist event ON THEIR WATCH…so they can “rise to the occasion” (won’t happen) , claim to be the military party, and the ones who have success in protecting America…al for their raw, political power grabs.
Legacy scamming, imho.
How did these Commanders-in chief work out for us:
JFK
LBJ
Carter
Clinton
Wanna trust your chilren’s lives to ANY of the above?
Not me. Ever.
The Kossacks are swallowing their tongues today over how “unfair” the questions were to Obama – meaning they’re outraged that ABC didn’t let him just stand there and spit out his talking points.
And give credit to Hillary for beating Obama like a drum last night – although it’s a pyrrhic victory for Hillary, since every time she nails him her negatives go up more than his.
Ed Morrissey was right, the real winner of the debate last night was John McCain.
They should be made to answer for withdrawal and explain to us how they will get around the consequences AJ mentions.
This ties in quite nicely with this blog post I found the other day. Victory in Iraq was defined in three stages, contrary to lefty rumors. Now we need to know from the two dem candidates what they think the three stages of defeat are going to look like, make them answer for it, see if they will admit to what is described here:
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/boobookitty/2008/04/09/victory_defined_now_let_s_see_the_definition_of_withdrawal
There was another answer Obama gave, on the topic of economics, which was just as bad (and shocking!) as his answer to the Iraq question. This was so bad that it even made Andrew Sullivan squirm, a man who as Chris Hitchens has said wants to have Obama’s baby.
Questioner Charles Gibbons mad the point that in both 1997 and 2003, tax revenues went up when capital gains tax rates were cut. Would Obama still support tax increases even if they caused revenue collected to actually drop? And Obama answered (paraphrased, I don’t have the transcript) Yes, because some people make too much money and that money should be redistributed to the poor to increase social justice, regardless of other consequences.
Obama is a typical marxian redistributionist – not really a surprise, but still amazing to hear it in his own words. No wonder the Kossacks are mad!
John McCain Wins Democratic Debate in Philly…
The parts that I did watch though, I’d say Hillary was the clear winner. Obama looked pissed off that he was still answering questions about his shady relationships, his views on America and Americans, and other things Obama didn’t want to…
AJ, given our recent discussions, I thought you’d appreciate this…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080417/D903I7A80.html
I thought this video would be especially appropriate for this discussion.
Oops!
See if this works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR8p0bro9RM
I don’t take them “at their word” and I trust only Ron Paul and Ralph Nader to get the troops out. I do however trust the true “democrats” of Iraq, all the Sunni and Shia secular and religious fredom fighters, to continue “assisting” Clinton and Obama, in their desires to pull the troops. Which brings me to Strata’s wish for the next Iraqi government to be a “democratic ally” of the American/Israeli Empire. Absurd. Every open democracy elects such as Hamas.
Then our “democracy” does everything to undermine the democratic results, in that instance by supporting the sellout Abbas.
This aside, the Strata rant is pretty clucky for a chickenhawk with only 35% of the public still supporting the war.
“Every open democracy elects such as Hamas.”
That’s funny, Truthy!
Gosh,MissedKittyOne
You mean the ruling elite didn’t get around to defining “victory” til 2005?
75,
Did H2T just say electing Hamas is like electing the Dems and it is inevitable, sooner or later, the dems will get the same nod as Hamas?
I think he/she did!
Guffaw like the ass you are,
Prize-winning Jimmy Carter was on target when he said after supervising it, the Fatah versus Hamas election was the freeest ever held in the Middle East.
“Ass” meaning 75 of course.
AJ, Why, I do believe he/she/it did! And just to make sure we got that right, he added a plug for the “prize-winning” Jimmy Carter…you know…just in case we misunderstood him.