Dems are the party of National Security?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Yup, not hard to see where you worked for several years, and who you worked for.

646874[/snapback]

Never hid it and hey I have to admit those tactics are just good politics, but really frustrating when on top of which you get cut out of any of the discussions.

 

So that is why I get so bent out of shape when Reps and other folks here argue that the Dems don't have a plan, duh!

 

We have plenty of them, just choosing to give only outlines and talking points so they don't get high jacked. Why should we have to write legislation the GOP is going to take credit for, but can't effectively write themselves? If they were a little less partisan, then the feelings wouldn't be so hard, but now it is just us v. them mentality among staffers and everyone is looking for ways to trump the other side.

[Johnny Coli]

It is a step in getting a dialog going and I have been bitching for years that they need to provide something. They provided something and I commented on each item listed in their "plan." I was looking for your response to my response to each item, which is how dialog happens. I am not expecting you to be a foreign policy expert. I am not one and do not expect you to be one.

 

Lets go through the items again:

Spend money. Complain about Republicans spending money and turn around and spend money. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

These things are already being done.

Spend money while complaining about Republicans spending money. 100% at point of origin?  Since only American companies are allowed to do this work (forgetting that terrorists come from the U.S. as well, but we will ignore that little item because it is not "feel good."), how are you going to force foreign governments to only allow American workers to do the work? This is not even close to being realistic or attainable.

Gotta love the RETREAT!!! attitude. How the hell is Congress going to do item one (or even item two), since they have no jurisdiction? Item three is just Bush Bad!!

Achieve energy independence by 2020?    Funny, when Republicans promote plans to do this (drill in ANWR, etc), the Dems are the first to kill these bills. Now, we are supposed to believe that they want to seriously eliminate reliance on foreign sources of energy?    Didn't Kennedy try to stop windfarms in MA? Is this another one of those "do as I say, not as I do" type thingies? "We want to promote windfarms, as long as it is not in my state." Hypocrisy at its finest. 

646635[/snapback]

I mentioned some already in the previous post.

 

21st Century Military:

You and I are never going to agree on the money issue. The complaint, I believe, is how the money is being spent. This item is moot, because your point of view on spending is never going to coincide with mine.

 

WoT:

How is Afganistan getting "finished" by the current methods? They just had an international incident over a death sentence for a guy who converted to Christianity. Sounds like a regular paradise over there. It's a good thing we overthrew the oppressive religious regime they had running their country.

Increasing size of special forces relates to the previous item. You use "spending" as a four-letter word. I say spending can be done wisely, and never the two shall meet.

Intelligence free from political presure: no pressure from the WH on that pre-war intelligence, right? As for working hand-in-hand with our international buddies...that's laughable. The Bush admin's "with us or against us" really strikes a heartfelt response from the international community, don't it?

Human rights: Aren't the Bushies arguing that non-US citizens have no rights? No need for improvement there.

The last two items are a wash, IMO.

 

In sum, actually finish the job in Afganistan, ie redirect resources away from Iraq and concentrate them there. Isn't there someone in Afganistan that we were trying to find a couple years ago? I can't seem to remember his name.

I don't see the Dems using the heavy-handed tactics that this admin uses against our own intelligence people.

You have to agree the international stuff can be improved on. Maybe you don't, and we can agree to disagree.

 

Homeland Security:

Screening 100% is probably unrealistic, but why not at least explore the idea, and there has to be room for improvement. I thought independent studies showed this was a security risk area for improvement? The Dems tried to increase spending for security in this area, and the GOP shot it down along party lines. We can spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, but not spend it here? Also, I don't think they're saying "eliminate outsourcing to all foreign entities, just those with lousy track records. The exact wording is:

Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.

We've already had the UAE debate. Saying the UAE port deal was sketchy got me called a racist.

 

The Bush admin does not have a swell record when it comes to providing funding for the CDC, or working with scientists in general, for that matter.

 

The GOP wants to spend money patrolling a border and putting up a fence? I think the money could be better spent. Once again, we're not going to agree on spending. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Hell, let's just not spend a dime, right?

 

Iraq:

I don't see a draw-down and a hand-over to the Iraqis as a "retreat." They're a sovereign nation. What's the worst that could happen? A civil war? Destabilization? Guess what? It's already happening.

Help from the international community isn't going to happen unless we ask, which this admin hasn't really attempted. Saying "This is the way it's going to be if you want to help" isn't getting it done.

I firmly believe that Bush and his admin should be held responsible for this cluster!@#$. You can chalk it up to Bush Bad!!!, but, it fits here. I'm not going to lie...I'm for throwing the whole lot of them in prison.

 

Energy Independence

Once again, we're not going to agree on ANWR. I've got no problem with exploring other energy resources, and that includes looking to (and yes, funding wisely) research and development, and working with, not against, the scientific community. The Bush record on enlisting scientists' help is deplorable. Any scientist that disagrees with them gets run through the Rove Machine, and studies proving them wrong get re-worded, ignored or deleted. (There are plenty of links out there describing the Bush War on Science).

 

 

There you go. Campaign contributions can be sent to ActBlue.

[Ghost of BiB]

Never hid it and hey I have to admit those tactics are just good politics, but really frustrating when on top of which you get cut out of any of the discussions. 

 

So that is why I get so bent out of shape when Reps and other folks here argue that the Dems don't have a plan, duh!

 

We have plenty of them, just choosing to give only outlines and talking points so they don't get high jacked.  Why should we have to write legislation the GOP is going to take credit for, but can't effectively write themselves? If they were a little less partisan, then the feelings wouldn't be so hard, but now it is just us v. them mentality among staffers and everyone is looking for ways to trump the other side.

646894[/snapback]

 

I'd buy into a lot of this line if it weren't for the fact I've personally been involved in writing some of these plans - and I don't recall copying anything from a Democrat staff memo from the Clinton Era.

 

Since 9/11, a lot of stuff had to be rethought from scratch, as what was already there apparantly wasn't working real well. But, if you want to credit the democrats for being the TRUE counter proliferation, homeland defense and counter terror leaders in government, nothing anyone can do to stop it.

 

But...you raised doubt...which is all those grasping for a new rookie quarterback needs.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I'd buy into a lot of this line if it weren't for the fact I've personally been involved in writing some of these plans - and I don't recall copying anything from a Democrat staff memo from the Clinton Era.

 

Since 9/11, a lot of stuff had to be rethought from scratch, as what was already there apparantly wasn't working real well. But, if you want to credit the democrats for being the TRUE counter proliferation, homeland defense and counter terror leaders in government, nothing anyone can do to stop it.

 

But...you raised doubt...which is all those grasping for a new rookie quarterback needs.

646919[/snapback]

Touche'

 

Yeh but did you actually write the leg, I know you guys are good at coming up with ideas, translating it to legaleese has been somewhat problematic, oh that is right, you just ignore the inconsistencies and prepare executive memos stating that law doesn't apply and you are going ahead with the change of plan without consulting anyone, hmmm, now I understand.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Sorry, couldn't resist being a smart @#$@#$

[Ghost of BiB]

Sorry, couldn't resist being a smart @#$@#$

646941[/snapback]

 

Not that far off the mark. I'm referring to actual operational documents vs. legislation. And there is no way in hell that most of Congress will ever set eyes on any of it. I'm pretty sure that there are a few here and there who do, for oversight reasons but it's better for everybody that they aren't aware. I think the temptations would be too great.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Touche'

 

Yeh but did you actually write the leg, I know you guys are good at coming up with ideas, translating it to legaleese has been somewhat problematic, oh that is right, you just ignore the inconsistencies and prepare executive memos stating that law doesn't apply and you are going ahead with the change of plan without consulting anyone, hmmm, now I understand.

646938[/snapback]

 

Exactly.

 

Typical government... Roles are reversed from where they were... You can still through pragmatism out the window...

 

Hmm....

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Not that far off the mark. I'm referring to actual operational documents vs. legislation. And there is no way in hell that most of Congress will ever set eyes on any of it. I'm pretty sure that there are a few here and there who do, for oversight reasons but it's better for everybody that they aren't aware. I think the temptations would be too great.

646949[/snapback]

Yeh, not going to argue with that one, anything to gain an advantage over your oponnent, even not well understood National Security issues. Heck, even you have seen that, probably frustrates you to no end when something leaks, but if that is happening it is usually a sign that someone internally is playing too much politics or the thing underwraps is not working. Either way it may not be a bad thing at that point.

[Ghost of BiB]

Yeh, not going to argue with that one, anything to gain an advantage over your oponnent, even not well understood National Security issues.  Heck, even you have seen that, probably frustrates you to no end when something leaks, but if that is happening it is usually a sign that someone internally is playing too much politics or the thing underwraps is not working.  Either way it may not be a bad thing at that point.

646974[/snapback]

 

Surprisingly, at the agency I worked at I don't recall anything being "leaked" that was of any national security value. Security is a very big deal there, and because of how things are compartmentalized, and the nature of the work any "leak" could be attributed fairly easily. Probably more to the side of caution than needed to be, but better safe than sorry. Even the inter-departmental "political" stuff. What I ran into as more of a problem is some blast in the media, sometimes out of capitol hill that basically pulled the rug out from under something either going on or being planned. I'm sure, mostly out of ignorance more than malice. Hence, some of my past rants about the responsibility of not only our elected leadership, but of the press. For example, pushing something that inflames anti-American opinion in a certain region can very easily undermine something important going on in the background, causing the leadership in that region to back away for their own immediate interests.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Surprisingly, at the agency I worked at I don't recall anything being "leaked" that was of any national security value. Security is a very big deal there, and because of how things are compartmentalized, and the nature of the work any "leak" could be attributed fairly easily. Probably more to the side of caution than needed to be, but better safe than sorry. Even the inter-departmental "political" stuff. What I ran into as more of a problem is some blast in the media, sometimes out of capitol hill that basically pulled the rug out from under something either going on or being planned. I'm sure, mostly out of ignorance more than malice. Hence, some of my past rants about the responsibility of not only our elected leadership, but of the press. For example, pushing something that inflames anti-American opinion in a certain region can very easily undermine something important going on in the background, causing the leadership in that region to back away for their own immediate interests.

647006[/snapback]

Yeh that happens too, can't argue with it and I am not sure there is an easy way to overcome it when politics are being played up there and someone doesn't think of the consequences or deem the consequences as all the vital...not seeing the whole picture.

[KRC]

We have common ground in the fact that money needs to be spent wisely. The problem is the definition of “wisely” and that is where we are having the problem. Democrats seem to want to just toss money at a problem to make it go away. If the problem persists, it is because we are not spending enough money. The quality of a program is determined by how much money is spent, not how effectively it is spent. I see the same thing happening here. To show they care about the troops, toss money at them. If they do not feel loved, send more money. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the Dems can spend the money wisely. That is based on their history and they have shown me absolutely nothing that they are willing to change their ways. Where the hell are they going to get this money? They are already bitching about the massive debt, but yet they want to continue spending. Raise taxes?

 

 

 

 

Iraq:

I don't see a draw-down and a hand-over to the Iraqis as a "retreat."

646902[/snapback]

 

re·treat

n.

1.

a. The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.

 

Sounds like a retreat to me. You are leaving before things are finished. Why? Because it is unpleasant. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war (I think I know what side you are on ) we cannot just cut and run. That is exactly what this plan calls for, IMO.

 

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine that the troops there are real pleased with the Dems saying that they are not doing a good enough job (oh, yeah, it is not their fault. It is Bush's fault since Bush is the one on the ground running the operations). "Yeah troops. You suck."

 

I am tired of the mentality that things need to happen immediately, or things are not being done right. I see this with Afghanistan, I see it with Iraq and I see it with North Korea (all items on the Dem hit list). Long-term solutions take time to impliment. North Korea is a perfect example of what happens when you try to rush things because you are scared of things that are unpleasant.

 

As far as some of the other points, Dems are calling for energy independence, but when items are proposed that work towards that goal, they try to block it. Hypocrisy. They continually talk about Bush Bad, but want to implement the same policies that Bush has been pushing. Hypocrisy.

[ExiledInIllinois]

We have common ground in the fact that money needs to be spent wisely. The problem is the definition of “wisely” and that is where we are having the problem. Democrats seem to want to just toss money at a problem to make it go away. If the problem persists, it is because we are not spending enough money. The quality of a program is determined by how much money is spent, not how effectively it is spent. I see the same thing happening here. To show they care about the troops, toss money at them. If they do not feel loved, send more money. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the Dems can spend the money wisely. That is based on their history and they have shown me absolutely nothing that they are willing to change their ways. Where the hell are they going to get this money?  They are already bitching about the massive debt, but yet they want to continue spending. Raise taxes?

647049[/snapback]

 

Again... I can agree with you... Not sure what other people are doing... By no means 'em I doing everything right and I still managed to pay only a little over 8% in income taxes last year... Most everybody else in my bracket is paying around 19%... What am I doing "right?"

 

And I for one am not living a lavish life, comfortable that is certain, I don't feel over taxed... Actually, undertaxed. I save heavily for my family's future... But, I would be a fool to not take what is offered to me?

 

I take a lot of other people are doing the same... Yet, the medians just don't translate.

 

??

[KRC]

I don't feel over taxed... Actually, undertaxed. 

647102[/snapback]

 

So, donate more to the government. We gotta pay for this new "plan" from the Dems along with the uncontrolled spending from the Republicans.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

So, donate more to the government. We gotta pay for this new "plan" from the Dems along with the uncontrolled spending from the Republicans. 

647107[/snapback]

AH Ken, LOL. Though the only time it seemed to work was when the GOP controlled congress and the Dems were in the executive branch. Also the the line item veto was out there.

 

Balanced the budget in short order and forced cuts in the bureaucracies.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So, donate more to the government. We gotta pay for this new "plan" from the Dems along with the uncontrolled spending from the Republicans. 

647107[/snapback]

 

I ain't no saint Ken. A limo liberal is hard to get out of your blood...

[ExiledInIllinois]

AH Ken, LOL.  Though the only time it seemed to work was when the GOP controlled congress and the Dems were in the executive branch.  Also the the line item veto was out there.

 

Balanced the budget in short order and forced cuts in the bureaucracies.

647110[/snapback]

 

I totally agree.

 

Even if it meant my job... You still need to touch the one's with the "Holy Grail" Bib was alluding to.

 

We'd all suffer for the better.

[KRC]

Balanced the budget in short order and forced cuts in the bureaucracies.

647110[/snapback]

Good first step on the way to surplus budgets (real surpluses, not phoney ones) and even smaller bureaucracies.

[Johnny Coli]

We have common ground in the fact that money needs to be spent wisely. The problem is the definition of “wisely” and that is where we are having the problem. Democrats seem to want to just toss money at a problem to make it go away. If the problem persists, it is because we are not spending enough money. The quality of a program is determined by how much money is spent, not how effectively it is spent. I see the same thing happening here. To show they care about the troops, toss money at them. If they do not feel loved, send more money. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the Dems can spend the money wisely. That is based on their history and they have shown me absolutely nothing that they are willing to change their ways. Where the hell are they going to get this money?  They are already bitching about the massive debt, but yet they want to continue spending. Raise taxes?

647049[/snapback]

I don't see how increasing health care benefits (and other benefits; that section of the "agenda" is very detailed) for returning veterans is "toss[ing] money at them." It's not a bribe. Hell, I'm for getting healthcare benefits to everyone, not just the vets, but it's a good start, considering all the cuts the Bush admin proposed.

 

The money was there before we went into Iraq. I have a bit more faith in the Dems than you do in their ability to spend more wisely once they get control().

 

re·treat

n.

1.

a. The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.

 

Sounds like a retreat to me. You are leaving before things are finished. Why? Because it is unpleasant. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war (I think I know what side you are on    ) we cannot just cut and run. That is exactly what this plan calls for, IMO.

647049[/snapback]

It's not a retreat if you set a reasonable exit strategy. How is it cutting and running if you're handing a country back to it's own people? The Bushies shot themselves in the ass with the "mission accomplished" nonsense, and their absurd PR war that everything is just rosey over there. "The insurgency is in it's last throes" comes to mind. Every time we see a purple finger waving in the air it's THE big milestone election that puts them on the right track. It would be a joke if people weren't dying by the busload.

 

Set a reasonable timeline, and stick to it. No one says it has to be six months. Level with the american people, and stop feeding us this crap about how the insurgents are waiting for us to withdraw. Waiting for what? To go back to Syria? It's not like it's a secret that they're there. We see them running across our TVs every night at 6:00. You guys are always preaching "personal responsibility". Scale it up to include "national responsibility." To be honest, I don't think the Bushies "want" the Iraqis to decide who their own leaders are. It would be a colossal failure if that country became another dictatorial theocracy. So let's spend another couple hundred billion and sit through 12 more elections until we get a leader in there we like.

 

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine that the troops there are real pleased with the Dems saying that they are not doing a good enough job (oh, yeah, it is not their fault. It is Bush's fault since Bush is the one on the ground running the operations). "Yeah troops. You suck."

647049[/snapback]

I expect that they're just as frustrated as the american people. I'd like to think that the people in the military don't by into the administrations nonsense that if you don't support the "war", you 're not supporting the troops. I would think they'd be pleased as hell to get additional resources and get OBL. Wouldn't that be great? To actually commit resources to getting the guy responsible for 9-11? I bet morale would be pretty freaking high after that.

 

 

I am tired of the mentality that things need to happen immediately, or things are not being done right. I see this with Afghanistan, I see it with Iraq and I see it with North Korea (all items on the Dem hit list). Long-term solutions take time to impliment. North Korea is a perfect example of what happens when you try to rush things because you are scared of things that are unpleasant.

647049[/snapback]

If it's a long-term solution, don't do a song and dance routine after a couple of weeks telling us it's been a huge success. I'm not scared of unpleasant things. I'm concerned that we were flat-out lied to, ran in without international support, and are stuck there. That's unpleasant. If it's going to take ten years, be a man and tell us it's going to take ten years. Don't feed us the line that "the insurgents are waiting for us to leave." I wasn't aware that the insurgents were dictating our foreign policy in the region. Someone should tell Condi. Maybe they can iron this out over a couple gyros.

 

As far as some of the other points, Dems are calling for energy independence, but when items are proposed that work towards that goal, they try to block it. Hypocrisy. They continually talk about Bush Bad, but want to implement the same policies that Bush has been pushing. Hypocrisy.

647049[/snapback]

You know what, I'm all for getting those Dems out of office, then. There is a progressive movement in the party that the old guard is none to happy with. They don't think Dean is moving in the right (left) direction with his 50 state, grass/net roots push. It's time for a sea-change in the party, but it's not going to happen overnight. One election at a time. I'd rather see the GOP crime bosses bounced out first, though. But that's just me.

[chicot]

We have common ground in the fact that money needs to be spent wisely. The problem is the definition of “wisely” and that is where we are having the problem. Democrats seem to want to just toss money at a problem to make it go away. If the problem persists, it is because we are not spending enough money. The quality of a program is determined by how much money is spent, not how effectively it is spent. I see the same thing happening here. To show they care about the troops, toss money at them. If they do not feel loved, send more money. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the Dems can spend the money wisely. That is based on their history and they have shown me absolutely nothing that they are willing to change their ways. Where the hell are they going to get this money?  They are already bitching about the massive debt, but yet they want to continue spending. Raise taxes?

re·treat

n.

1.

a. The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.

 

Sounds like a retreat to me. You are leaving before things are finished. Why? Because it is unpleasant. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war (I think I know what side you are on    ) we cannot just cut and run. That is exactly what this plan calls for, IMO.

 

As far as Afghanistan, I imagine that the troops there are real pleased with the Dems saying that they are not doing a good enough job (oh, yeah, it is not their fault. It is Bush's fault since Bush is the one on the ground running the operations). "Yeah troops. You suck."

 

I am tired of the mentality that things need to happen immediately, or things are not being done right. I see this with Afghanistan, I see it with Iraq and I see it with North Korea (all items on the Dem hit list). Long-term solutions take time to impliment. North Korea is a perfect example of what happens when you try to rush things because you are scared of things that are unpleasant.

 

As far as some of the other points, Dems are calling for energy independence, but when items are proposed that work towards that goal, they try to block it. Hypocrisy. They continually talk about Bush Bad, but want to implement the same policies that Bush has been pushing. Hypocrisy.

647049[/snapback]

 

"Sounds like a retreat to me. You are leaving before things are finished. Why? Because it is unpleasant. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war (I think I know what side you are on ) we cannot just cut and run. That is exactly what this plan calls for, IMO. "

 

But how do you know when things are "finished"? What criteria do you apply to decide when this is the case? What happens if the conditions that need to be met are still not in 10 years time? In 50 years time? Do you go blindly on forever or do you decide that Iraq is not going to be what the US wants it to be and let the Iraqi people decide how best to deal with this mess?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But how do you know when things are "finished"?

 

THAT is an excellent question. It's also the one that the administration, in their marketing stupidity, hasn't answered well. (At this point, I'm not even sure they could: they're not exactly the personfication of coherent and intelligent answers, any coherent and intelligent answer would get twisted to something overwhelmingly negative anyway.)