Because I'm ornery and very weary of hearing the Rep narrative of we're the only party who can protect you I have a question for the believers.
The main logic that Rep use is based on their focus on the War on Terrorism, which is interesting because 9/11 arguably happened because George was laser beam focused on his version of missle defense, Star Wars and state to state conflict. After 9/11, George shifted gears and threw everything we had and he needed at his War on Terrorism.
We certainly have not only the largest, best equipped armed forces in the world, but also the largest count of deployed forces. That said, those forces are packaged with our equipment and our weaponry abroad and like a Cyclops, Bush has once again single issued our defense.
Should there be a state sponsored, real honest to God attack on this County, we are left with Chertoff's Homeland Security as our defense because, though we still have a substantial military, it is certainly not as well equipped or as combat ready as it was prior to Bush's chase to the oil finish line.
So by what standards, Bush belivers, is this country better protected than it was before you came into office?
Posted by mainsailset at September 16, 2006 11:55 AMSecurity Was Secondary To Politics In Iraq.
Was?
Posted by James E. Powell at September 16, 2006 12:40 PMGingritch, Delay used to talk about Democrats having their snouts in the Federal trough for public programs such as Welfare, Medicare & Medicaid, Social Security. Republicans would bring fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government. George Bush rode to the White House saying "It's the people's money." We now see the results of Republican control. Don't think anyone could have conceived of such voracious Republican snouts wolfing down "The People's Money." ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS.
Posted by CLK at September 16, 2006 01:23 PMSteve-O,
So many things to hang around the Mofo from Midland's neck:
1.) Iraq
2.) the Deficit
3.) our standing in the world
4.) the decline in real wages
5.) Federal (no)funding for stem cells
The list is endless, really.
Bushco is a clown without a circus; a failed husband, father, businessman, governor, and president. He's the perfect GOPer.
Posted by Christopher at September 16, 2006 01:26 PMVote Republican. Political Purity trumps National Security.
Vote Republican. Political Incest trumps National Security.
Also, there is that Greenwald movie coming out. I think it's called Iraq For Sale. I believe Atrios has been flagging this movie on his site a few times. Seems to go hand in hand with this article in some respects. Vote Republican. The Perpetual War Party.
Posted by emal at September 16, 2006 03:24 PMGeorge Waterboarding Bush
nuff said
Um, channeling Nixon...
Why doesn't someone just come out and say "The President is a crook".
You remember Nixon, right. He had to go on tv and tell the public that indeed, he was not a crook.
Man, I could make a fortune being a political consultant.
".... and to drive up the approval numbers of vulnerable GOP incumbents, the White House will keep the focus on the war on terror..."
A focus on the War-on-Islamic-Terrorism is the correct focus. If, as an aside, this focus brings into sharp contrast the Democratic Party tendency to be weak on defense to the benefit of Republicans (well)....so be it.
Posted by Bagley at September 16, 2006 07:04 PMWhy doesn't someone just come out and say "The President is a crook".
Alex, isn't that what Senator Kerry called him? Was he ever right when he said he had never seen such "a bunch of liars and crooks." I agree. Wouldn't it be satisfying to have a politician look into the camera and say "George Bush is not only a criminal, but a crook."
Posted by Judith at September 16, 2006 07:20 PMBagley,
The one constant about the Bush administration scince taking office has been a dedication to cutting taxes for the very wealthy. They have never swerved from that goal for anything. Do you really believe that the occupation was understaffed and the taxes needed to pay for it were not passed because the experts, both military and economic, really said that they weren't needed at the time.
Posted by herbal tee at September 16, 2006 09:23 PMFeel sorry for Bagley, a trained authoritarian follower, a conditioned-to-obedience tool waiting for the Bush Kargo Kult to rain down blessing and smite his enemies. He doesn't get it that unless he has a fat bank account, he's just another sheep to be slaughtered in the eyes of the Bush cronies.
Posted by Mike G at September 16, 2006 10:53 PM"A focus on the War-on-Islamic-Terrorism is the correct focus. If, as an aside, this focus brings into sharp contrast the Democratic Party tendency to be weak on defense to the benefit of Republicans (well)....so be it."
Baggy, will you please explain to me just how the Democrats "are weak on defense." Since this is your party's mantra, I am interested in what facts back-up this position by the GOP. Just how are we "weak on defense?"
Posted by Judith at September 17, 2006 03:20 AMBaggy, will you please explain to me just how the Democrats "are weak on defense."
He can't. He won't.
Because Baggy knows 9/11 happened on PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH'S WATCH.
For it was Little Boots who had Jeff Gannon's balls on his chin at the Crawford pig farm and wasn't interested in the August 6th, 2001 PBD.
Posted by Christopher at September 17, 2006 08:21 AMDemocratic Party tendency to be weak on defense
How many of the Iraq vets running for congress are Republican?
If you know.
Posted by Repack Rider at September 17, 2006 09:06 AM