Dems In The Base-ment

With the anti-war base. What, did the peaceniks actually believe the Dems were going to deliver? How's that first 100 days going, Nan?? ; )

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause.

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

I really hope the anti war crowd leaves the Dems and goes over to the Greens. This will hopefully lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party.

[Purple Avenger]

I'd be happy if they went over to Canada ;->

[Phoenix]

Does the Green party have a candidate?

The Jolly Green Giant?

[seekeronos]

SDB: I'd be happy if the nutroots nutjobs plain leave the continent. I hear Saudi Arabia and Iran have a thing for the moon... maybe the moonbats will be at home there, free to practice the "Religion of Peace" (TM)...

Phoenix: Usually Ralph Nader's been the Green's perennial Presidential candidate. Although, the Jolly Green Giant might be an improvement.

Is there someone new running it this time around?

[jong]

The antiwar crowd is 60+ percent of the public. As long as the Republican position is to support the war, there ain't gonna be a Republican president. All those guys that want the nomination are trying to figure out to finesse their way out of Bush's Iraq fiasco.

At the debates, every Democrat said we need to get out of Iraq, every Republican essentially said we need to stay. That's electoral suicide for the Republicans.

[Purple Avenger]

"The antiwar crowd is 60+ percent of the public."

Confusing unhappiness about progress with desire for defeat will prove fatal for the democrats.

[seekeronos]

PA hits that one good.

Of that supposed 60%, probably only 10% of that 60% (or 6% of the total "public") are willing to endorse the far left's braying and whinnying for complete unconditional surrender.

Of the rest, that runs the range from a forced timetable for withdrawal to some other metric that we could better measure our progress. Unfortunately, a lack of willingness of the Iraqi insurgents and a lack of willingness by the Bush Administration to prosecute the war fully with all available options and tools, as well as the obfuscations with Iraqi WMDs and a generally treasonous and seditious press establishment serve only to hamstring us until we have no choice but to shamefully withdraw, as a laughingstock before the world.

I'd be willing to say that this is just another step in the globalist elites' desires to ruin America and turn her into a 3d or 4th rate nation so that the EUrabia can step in to _really_ louse things up on a planetary scale.

[jong]

Apparently you guys missed the last election where the Republicans got their asses kicked largely due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War.

And just exactly is it you want Bush do in Iraq to "prosecute the war fully"? Do you guys support tax increases to fight the war? Do you support a draft?

[southdakotaboy]

I support killing Iranians on the border as they smuggle wepons into Iraq. I support blowing the crap out of mosques if insergents are hiding in them. I support using special forces to knock Syria out of the war. That would be a good start to fully fighting the war.

[tally]

i don't know jong, during the election, republican after republican said they would no longer support an overspending congress.

[seekeronos]

If it were up to me, I'd bring home the soldiers and set them up on the Mexican border, and whatever I had left on the Canadian border (especially in the Great Lakes section of the border, where all the surplus radical muzzies are creeping in to MN, WI, IL, MI, and IN)... on the precondition that I would be able to unilaterally nuke a random Arab or Persian city in response to any future Islamist terror event. We really have little use for keeping a huge percentage of our defense forces deployed overseas anyway. Europe, Japan, and Korea individually possess extremely powerful militaries.

And on the subject of nukes, we won't use only the nice, clean tactical nukes; I'm talking the big, nasty, Cold War era 50MT and up city-busters that can turn a Rhode Island sized patch of real estate into green glowing goo for the next 37,000 years.

Let us not labour any longer under the illusion that anyone else is really interested in keeping the protocol of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty. We would do well to stop fooling ourselves, and withdrawal from that worthless scrap of paper, and arm ourselves to the teeth with a new generation of ICBMs, SLBMs, and advanced ABMs, as well as space-based/orbital weaponry.

But since that is not likely to happen (especially with the Russkies getting antsy about our ABM defenses in former Warsaw Pact nations)...

...then I'll support the sale of war bonds and tax exemptions for enlisted soldiers and ratings, and sharp tax penalties on MSMs that continue to obfuscate the progress we make, and peddle leftist and Islamist propaganda to the deat and despair of our troops. I'll also support limited tax increases to fund incentives and bonuses for new enlistments and re-enlistments, as well as floating a future complete personal income tax exemption for all combat veterans.

I'll also support building up the army to a strength of 1.0 - 1.5 million men, and forcibly occupying Iraq as a military protectorate by dissolving the Maliki/Sadr government, and installing the appropriate puppets in suitably weakened Sunni and Shite "cantons", keeping them disarmed on pain of death.

This is why I say Bush has failed: Iraq is not ready for a true representative democracy, and will not be ready for at least another two or three generations under Islam.

The only way I could see it happening in anything under 20 years would be a massive de-islamification and a heavy missionary outreach to convert as many Iraqis to Christianity as the Lord permits.

Until then, Iraq needs to brought under an iron, Bismarckian boot heel, and every notion of Islamism or tribalism mercilessly and pitilessly squashed like cockroaches in a greasy spoon restaraunt that had the lights come on in the middle of the night.

Can the Iraqis be brought into the fold? Yes, but only once Islam is removed.

[jong]

Well seek, you got off to a good start but then detoured into the Land of the Insane with the nuke strategy. If you really believe we need should randomly nuke cities killing millions of innocents, you are certifiably nuts.

[Phoenix]

Seek for president for the brand new Kick-Your-Ass party. :)

I say we moved Israel and give them our southern border as the Promised Land. The 'promise' is we'll take care of them if they take care of our southern border. They're good at that.

How about this - I say 100% of Americans want out of Iraq. I also say only the future-insight-impaired want to do it before we get things settled. People gripe and complain, but when it comes down to the wire, most will vote for security so that 60% is a joke. It's easy to whine, but in the voting booth people are going to be thinking about 'what-if?'. The mid-term election was hardly a great win, and as long as the dems keep embarrassing themselves with the help of those fine peace protestors, I think the landscape will change dramatically in '08 in favor of whoever will protect us best. That would be a republican.

[seekeronos]

Jong said:

"Well seek, you got off to a good start but then detoured into the Land of the Insane with the nuke strategy. If you really believe we need should randomly nuke cities killing millions of innocents, you are certifiably nuts."

Understand that I spoke hyperbolically of nuking middle eastern cities. It _won't happen_ ... barring some very unusual circumstances (say, a coordinated strike of Iranian agents or perhaps of AQ detonating dirty bombs throughout our food production belt, thus ruining us with radiation poisoning and later, famine).

I said that because it is equally unrealistic to expect that we can simply walk away from the ME and expect to retain our present economy, much less our relative security vs. Islamists.

It is far better that we stick it out, continue to deny the ability to control access to Iraqi oil to our competitors, and perhaps even acheive success in containing (or rolling back) Islam.

There is simply too much diplomatically at stake to consider a sudden "Fortress America" approach where we unilaterally withdraw from all foreign deployments and seal our borders. However, I would like for us to stop kidding ourselves about nuclear technology and the NPT:

(1) Iran WILL have a bomb in about 2-5 years, and plenty of fissile material to crank out bunches of bombs. I suspect though, that in the short run, there will be less emphasis on making deliverable nukes to the USA (but certainly to Israel, and likely to Europe) - the excess weapons grade fissiles will likely be implemented in dirty bombs or seeded secretly into other wide areas of exposure to "poison the infidels".

(2) As Iran gains nuke weapons, so also will her Sunni neighbors. As will North Korea benefit from much black market trade in nuke technology, prompting her further growth and tempting fate by occassionally testing a nuke, or lobbing missiles over Japan. Look for Pacific Asia to destabilize as Japan and China have a nuke arms race.

(3) The NNPT is a garbage treaty; it is utterly worthless. therefore, we need to get ahead of the game, withdraw from the NNPT, and start arming ourselves to the teeth. MAD worked during the cold war, and it will work in a mulit-polar, multi-threat nuclear deterrence scenario.

I would much rather see our armed forces used to secure the border, and the Navy and Air Force used to leverage our military power against our forces abroad.

[seekeronos]

Edit: correcting my last sentence -

"I would much rather see our armed forces used to secure the border, and the Navy and Air Force used to leverage our military power against our foes abroad."

[tally]

We either make Mexico our 51st state, or send the National Guard to the border. In Iraq, we seal their highways of entry and make one final sweep to clean out the larger rat's nests. We bring the troops home while leaving several special ops units (bad ass types) to make undercover destroy missions when necessary. Get all our oil from Mexico and Canada while becoming totally dependent on hydrogen. Have a hydrogen race like the satellite push in the 60's. Plenty of money to be made right here at home. We can do it, we can do anything.

[seekeronos]

Problem with Hydrogen (H2) is that it is only a store of energy, and not a source... we need to build hundred of nuclear plants and master fusion reactor technology.

[tally]

Purdue Professor Jerry Woodall has a method that
makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen.
The hydrogen is generated on demand my the driver. I don't remember the details, but it works on the hydrogen cars already on the market.