The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Nephythys]

Funny you would mention party before country- sounds like the Democrat party through and through.

Editorial by Orson Scott-Card

Very long- but worth reading. Even he, as a Dem, can see the Dems are putting political power over the safety of our country.

What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.

While if we elect any of the Republicans who are extremist enough to please the Hannity wing of the party, our resulting belligerence will likely provoke Islam into unifying behind one of the tyrants, which is every bit as terrifying an outcome.

I hope somebody emerges in one of the parties, at least, who commits himself or herself to continuing Bush's careful, wise, moderate, and so-far-successful policies in the War on Terror.

Meanwhile, we have this election. You have your vote. For the sake of our children's future -- and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future, too -- vote for no Congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war. And vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war.

Heh- my kind of Dem. Too bad the moonbats seem to run the party.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Even he, as a Dem, can see the Dems are putting political power over the safety of our country.

A democrat in the grand tradition of Zell Miller. C'mon, the reason this guy considers himself a dem is solely based on his pro gun legislation stance. Otherwise, he has always been pro-war, pro-bush, and anti-gay. So I'm not in the least surprised that he feels the way he does.

And his view that we are winning the war in Iraq and on Terrorism in general has no basis in reality. Y'all can keep repeating those lines as much as possible. It doesn't change the fact that it isn't true. Just listen to what the military leaders are saying. They are there and they understand that they are in a hopeless situation.

And the sad fact is, I think that most republicans understand this as well. Unfortunately, it is more important to retain power than to try to figure out a way to putting an end to our soldiers being killed on a daily basis in an unwinnable war, simply because the administration refuses to admit that they erred in starting this war.

And yet, had they paid any attention to this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.

And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."