Democrats & Liberals Archives

Real Security or Just Talk?

Ok, so the Democrats have unveiled their plan for Iraq and “Real Security” for the nation. One might read what they are proposing and just dismiss it as election year talk.

However, if you want change in Iraq and change in the way the war on terror is being fought, then this is a chance for the electorate to force the Democrat's hands. What they are proposing may just be election year rhetoric or maybe not, but it is important that Democrats throw themselves behind their plan and send a clear message to Democratic leaders that we expect action if they regain control of Congress in November.

Of course, some on the right started with their attack of the Democratic plan before it was even unveiled. The plan identifies obvious problems and offers solutions, but lacks exact details of how to make these things happen. That is a funny charge coming from the party that hasn't offered a detail in 5 years, citing "national security" concerns. Bear in mind it is still 7 months until the election. Democrats have plenty of time to fill in the blanks.

We will not get change in this security nightmare by putting Republicans back in control of Congress; they are not proposing change. Our only chance of getting change is through the Democrats.

Posted by JayJay Snow at March 30, 2006 12:59 PM
Comments
Comment #136887

JayJay,

I would really like to see the Dems propose a substantial policy, however, from the emails that I get from the Dems, it’s just more election year rhetoric.

The Dem’s REAL (as opposed to FAKE, we are to assume) Security program is just another arrogant (REAL—-FAKE) Bush bashing “buzz”. Just like the last 3 or 4 weeks of emails all using the “buzz” words “dangerous” and “incompetence” and “dangerously incompetant”.

Until the Dems and Reps quit calling each other names and smearing each other…NOTHING will get accomplished that will move theis country forward.

Posted by: Jim T at March 30, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #136889

Jim T:

You mean like “traitor”, and all the other “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” kind of stuff?

I would much rather NOT have them be too specific, I think policy should reflect what is happening, not “stay the course” with no room for change due to circumstances.

Just me.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #136899

Didn’t take long for this thread to turn into partisan posturing, did it?

Posted by: Dave at March 30, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #136900

THE UPSIDE DOWN SECURITY POLICY i was impressed with the dems.press conferance yesterday pelosi showing her plan upside down dirty harry behind her popping pills.and we wonder why nothing gets done in the senate and congress.where was kerry,kennedy and all the other world shakers from the left?what a cheap way to try and make the dems. look responsible.this is a mission impossable.clue stop sleeping with prince valium and you just might see thigs a little clearer!!!!

Posted by: jcmasterblaster at March 30, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #136902

“Our only chance of getting change is through the Democrats”

Sorry to hear that you believe that JayJay.
The only change we would get with that would only be the reps names.
“Real Security” plan huh? You can find most of the same rhetoric on the GOP sites.

I do have a quick question though: How do we pay for all that?
All we have been hearing from the lefties (well, other than Bush bashing) is that we need to cut military spending.
That plan will do no such thing.

Just more of the same, election year garbage.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #136909

We can follow this administration and be called patriots or question it and be called terriorism supportors or the number of labels the lock stepping supporters have called me. It is my job in this country to question our leaders and to have them respond. When any government hides their dealings under the cloak of “national security” or any of their excuses, it makes me wonder what they are really hiding.

I am a moderate to liberal voter who is tired of people who try to take away my beliefs wheather it be political or religious by calling me names .

Posted by: C.T. Rich at March 30, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #136919

kctim,
I don’t hear a lot of Democrats calling for defense cuts. That would be suicide.
Dont confuse complaints about Iraq spending with defense cuts, since bushco themselves REFUSE to include Iraq money in any budget. They just keep passing “emergency” spending bills.
What we need to do is spend the hundreds of billions more wisely. More productive efforts at securing (the root of “security”) our vulnerable assets and mellow out on the world conquest stuff.
Funny how cons continually belch about how Democrats ‘have no plan’, then when they propose a plan, they bitch about how they don’t really mean it.
I’d say the republicans record so far under bush leaves little room for criticizing other “plans”.

Posted by: Norby at March 30, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #136920

Norby
Its also funny how libs think anybody that disagrees with them is a conservative.
Its also funny how Democrats bitch about the Republican plan and then come up with one that is almost identical.
I’d say the democrats and Republicans record over the past 15 years leaves little room for either side to criticize anything.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #136922

kctim,
Dont remember mentioning you specifically. But if your that sensitive…
I wouldn’t agree at all that the Dems plan is “identical” to the repubs. What IS the repub plan, btw? All I’ve seen is unlimited Iraq funding, virual ignoring of “homeland” issues, and nary a word about Osamabeenforotten”.
Oh, nice story out of the newly “democratic” afghanistan about that guy that had to be smuggled out of the country before they could behead him for the dastardly crime of converting to Christianity.
Is that an example of the Islamic Democracy that were shedding so much blood for?? (no, I’m not attacking YOU with these comments. This is a public forum)

Posted by: Norby at March 30, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #136927

Norby,
I would like to make a distinction here… the crime was not converting to Christianity. I knew that this would be taken up as the rallying call… However, the crime was leaving Islam. It is a subtle but significant difference. But, after all, isn’t that what fundamentalists tell us we should do? Get back to God’s law and stop this secular humanism stuff.


jcmasterblaster,
I am not sure who dirty harry is. I am also surprised that of all the possible pills a person might be taking… digitalis, asprin, tic-tac, Tums… you know it to be valium. Amazing those HD tv sets! Was the easy identification based upon a familiarity with the pill?

Otherwise… it would be blatant smearing of a person just to denigtate his reputation and to infer things which aren’t true? Wouldn’t it?

Conservatives used to pride themselves based upon the logic of their arguments and the strength of their well thought out convictions.

Sadly, it has turned into throwing as much mud on the wall and seeing what will stick.

I can see now why TRUE Conservatives are strarting to rise up against the hijacking of their principles… their identity has been taken over by people with no other purpose than to bash the other side and who are riding on the conservatives coat tails.

The accusations always go towards partisanship and you exemplified the ignoring of the topic or the idea based upon the person or persons presenting it.

Faced with this… we are supposed to present an open mind to new ideas? We are told we should not judge a governmental policy just because it was presented by President Bush.

Okay. Yeah. Right.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #136928

the cristianity hatred dos’nt exist only in afghanistan.you are cluless look around its the new hip thing in america.

Posted by: john counts at March 30, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #136930

darren the conservitives tried to play nice with the liberals for 3 years seen it was hopless so i sir play by your rules now.if you cant handle the heat stay out of the kitchen!

Posted by: jcmasterblaster at March 30, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #136933

I never said I couldn’t stand the heat… what I chose to point out was your assumption and assertion as fact a person was taking vailum.

Assuming a liberal is a whimp can be a serious mistake.

Excuse me if I fail to understand the 3 years reference… exactly when would that be? Possibily it was so subtle that everyone, including the conseratives missed it.

My rules huh? Lovely, then if that is so, please look through the site here and see my lamenting the loss of statesman in our leadership positions…

Now, this is my opinion… but the real guttersniping seems to have come from Congressman Gingrich… which turned out to not really be such a wonderful example of what the Republican’s wanted to represent to the people.

Luckily, usually the presentation of the message is just as important as the message itself.

Please, yes, by all means, continue to wrap your message up in meaningless mud throwing… I believe that it is completely appropriate to the level of the contribution to the discussion.

Pardon me for mentioning civility… I forgot that this has become a “Holy” war… hmmmmm… don’t we have someone that does that whom we are fighting? Let’s see… oh yes, the Jihad that has been misconstrued to mean murder and throwing away that which makes us civil and rationale… all in the name of belittling and defeating the enemy… us, fellow Americans in this instance.

My bad.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #136940
I would really like to see the Dems propose a substantial policy

What a coincidence! I’ve been saying the same thing about the Bush Administration for four years!

Posted by: bobo at March 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #136945

Norby
“Dont remember mentioning you specifically. But if your that sensitive…”

Me? Sensitive?
I believe in armed guards who are authorized to use deadly force being placed on our borders and I believe ALL govt funded social programs should be terminated.
So, I don’t think I could be considered sensitive.
(BTW…I get your point. My apologies for jumping the gun.)

“I wouldn’t agree at all that the Dems plan is “identical” to the repubs. What IS the repub plan, btw?”

Exactly! See? They are identical.

“Oh, nice story out of the newly “democratic” afghanistan about that guy that had to be smuggled out of the country before they could behead him for the dastardly crime of converting to Christianity. Is that an example of the Islamic Democracy that were shedding so much blood for??”

Actually, it is a democracy and in a democracy, majority rules. That is why I am so against the US becoming even more of a democracy than it already is.

“(no, I’m not attacking YOU with these comments. This is a public forum)”

I know. Again, my apologies if I jumped the gun.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #136954

Real Security
///
I don’t hear a lot of Democrats calling for defense cuts

How about Offense cuts? There should be limitations to a presidents abillty to send our troops, not his troops, anywhere he pleases to settle an old score with someone. It is the only way we are ever going to

mellow out on the world conquest stuff. Posted by: Norby at March 30, 2006 03:39 PM

///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 30, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #136955

“Actually, it is a democracy and in a democracy, majority rules.”

Not when the majority infringes on the rights of the individual. If the majority wants slavery, does that make it OK?
Afghanistan, for all bush’s claims, is NOT a democracy. Their leader is a weak puppet and wont be there long after we bug out.
If were laying down our soldiers lives so that they can create governments based on Islamic tenets, including murdering those that dont’ go along with their version of Islam completely, then we’ll add that to the gwbush Failure Pile.
Pretty soon the FAA will make us add a flashing red lite to that monument.

Posted by: norby at March 30, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #136961
I believe in armed guards who are authorized to use deadly force being placed on our borders and I believe ALL govt funded social programs should be terminated.

Illegal immigration is the natural result of free market. Pay for those armed guards and be ready for higher prices for anything grown in the USA. Oh, and higher costs for construction. And your restaurant tab will be higher.

Posted by: Loren at March 30, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #136966

JayJay

“The plan identifies obvious problems and offers solutions, but lacks exact details of how to make these things happen.”

Yes, but the devil is in the details!

Posted by: slowthinker at March 30, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #136969

Loren,

“Pay for those armed guards and be ready for higher prices for anything grown in the USA. Oh, and higher costs for construction. And your restaurant tab will be higher.”

And higher wages as the pendulm swings back to a workers market.
Funny the Libs see this as a race issue the middle see this as a security issue and the Reps see this as an economic issue.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #136974

Boy! This thread got sidetracked in a hurry.
Dem plan; Fully fund port security so 100% of cargo in inspected instead of 5%. Sounds pretty specific to me.
Energy independance by 2020. Date certain. sounds pretty specific to me.

Those are just two items. May I suggest reading the policy statement before knocking it.

Posted by: BillS at March 30, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #136976

Funny, I just looked at my post and can’t see the race issue.

Worker’s market? You sound like a flamin’ pinko. It is an economic issue. And middle class suburban red staters will be the hardest hit. Oh wait, maybe shutting down the borders is a good idea after all.

Posted by: Loren at March 30, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #136980

Loren,

“Worker’s market? You sound like a flamin’ pinko.”

Wow, so quick to judge?

I would have to say yes, if the illegals were not doing the jobs cheaper that businesses would be forced to pay higher wages or shut down.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #136982

kctim,
I don’t know if you have read any of my posts concerning Turkey. It is the only Muslim dominant democracy in history. It was founded at the end of WWI by Kemel Attaturk (Father of the Turks).

It was his belief that Turkey’s future faced the west. He introduced last names, outlawed the fez hats that they were famous for, created a more western script for their language. Their constitution specifically empowers the military to step in any time a religious party tries to gain power. Legal coups! Which they have done a couple of times.

Even as a long time partner in NATO and one of our best allies there are still factors related to their culture/religion that makes them have a difficult time joining the EU.

There is an author that is on trial for describing the Turkish genocide of Armenians which we see as so horrible. Yet, an English author is facing jail in Austria for denying the holocaust.

Somehow, as long as the countries don’t have a democracy that looks exactly like ours, they will be seen as not true or legitimate democracies.

The point here is that while, as you probably know, I opposed President Bush’s war justification, execution and follow up… here might be a case of having to accept that cultures are different. I don’t like it myself. Believe me. We can try to introduce democracy… but respecting it and making it fit their unique situation will be up to them. Afghanistan too.

I am distrustful by nature. But, let’s say it really was in our vital national security that we go to war because a country states they are going to do us harm and they are actually working towards that goal, then okay.

If that country does not treat its citizens in a way we would like, that is not justification for war. Condemnation yes! Boycotting of their products, yes! Many other means… What is the old line? I think it was Clint Eastwood’s, “A man has got to know his limitations.”

I have repeatedly tried to tell people on this site that while we are trying to build a democracy in Iraq we need to be especially careful of including minority opinions, basing our decisions on law, keeping religion out of our government and showing that differences can be accommodated without bloodshed or demonizing or labeling someone as heretical.

The majority in Iraq need to see that the majority does not mean absolute power. The minority, the Sunni and the Kurds and the Christians need to see that they are protected and have a voice in their government.

That is why it saddens me sometimes to see the name calling and the discussion reaching the level of what one would expect to hear on a school playground. Not you… just in general some of the comments people make here.


THE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN
There is a fine distinction here that some might not have noticed… the person in Afghanistan was being prosecuted for converting FROM Islam… not too Christianity. It is subtle… but very important.

A Jew might convert to Christianity or visa versa and there would not be a problem.

The key here is converting from or denouncing Islam.

I know… I might be possibly be accused of being an apologist for Muslims… But, situations should be based on accurate facts, not on what we think is going on.

Do I agree with this being justifiable? Nope! There is so much in religious dogma that I don’t agree with. Which is why I so much prefer secular rule. However, we need to base our opinions on the facts… and the fact is, this man was never on trial for converting to Christianity.

Loren,
Yes, the increase in just about everything will be substantially higher than most people presume. The loss of employees will definitely force up wages to lure people from a more limited labor pool, which they will pass on to the consumer… which will cause workers in unrelated fields to demand more money to make up for the increased costs… which raises the price of what they make… it spirals and causes inflation.

It is not, as some want to imply, just paying more for a salad and cutting our own grass. It will be beyond imagining to lose 22 million people… workers and consumers.

I liken the forced migration of 22 million people to the TRAIL OF TEARS PART II. The human suffering will be unimaginable… death, disease, starvation, possibly the falling of governments unable to handle the influx causing a rise in totalitarian states, either socialistic/communistic or right-wing.

Moving a couple of hundred thousand from New Orleans taxed our ability to move them and to house them. Imagine that with 11 to 22 million people.

Not all workers are paid under the table. We hear about all these people with bogus documentation which means that they are probably having taxes, including social security taken out… companies will maybe risk the INS, but they won’t risk the IRS or state tax boards!

Regardless of the number… 11 million or 20 million… no one has argued when I used their number of the cost being $1.6 billion that the immigrants are costing us. When we look at a worse case scenario that is about $145 per person with 11 million. Much less with 20 million. I cannot believe that with rent, car purchases, tires for those cars, movies, video rentals, pizzas, clothes and shoes, groceries… whatever, they are not contributing more than $145 per person to our economy.

We gave the HMO’s a $22 billion dollar gift last year… $2.2 billion a year over 10 years. More than the cost of the illegal aliens. The only response I got? “Yes, there is a lot of waste.”

Not outrage that $22 billion to the HMOs doesn’t cause an eye to be batted… but $1.6 billion is supposedly more than we can bear… it is draining us dry…

Most companies would move mountains for a chance at 22 million consumers.


AS TO THE TOPIC
Once again, on both sides, instead of looking for common ground. A starting point from which to build that they agree on.. hey want to posture as being the original, the first, the more this or the more that that the other people. Results? Same old, same old.

Would we start a negotiation for a car based upon calling the other person names? Or, would we set our limits and each try to find the best deal. Sigh.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #136983

They forgot to promise to cure the common cold, make all children loved and get all terrorists to renounce violence.

Great stuff. Meaningless, really.

SO they are going to inspect 100% of cargo. How many more inspectors?

I don’t understand that promise to restore full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006. Even if they were serious and ALL Iraqis cooperated, how can they carry it out? The is the President’s decision, so if it happens it is his doing.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #136984

Rocky

I found the worker’s market ironically Marxist.

BTW that pendulum is mighty slow when it comes to the avg Joe. I hope the potential workers survive the inflation that occurs after you secure the borders.

Posted by: Loren at March 30, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #136985

Bills said

Dem plan; Fully fund port security so 100% of cargo in inspected instead of 5%. Sounds pretty specific to me.
Energy independance by 2020. Date certain. sounds pretty specific to me

I said.

Be on Mars by next year.

Have spaceship with light travel in 2008.

It is easy to say things, quite another issue to do things.

The dems simply don’t have the will to do any meaningful security. This has been made quite obvious by their actions.

Posted by: nunya at March 30, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #136986

Sorry, I forgot to answer the question.

Just talk.

Posted by: Nunya at March 30, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #136987

Loren,

“I found the worker’s market ironically Marxist.”

Marxist?

Hardly, the thought never crossed my mind. Think of it as the opposite of an employers market.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #136991

Remember Bushco’s state of the union speech when he said he would seek to cut 75% of the oil imports from the middle east by 2025 ? The very next day the whitehouse came out and said that was just “an example” and he did not mean it literally.In other words he was just pandering.
I could not agree with your last paragraph more. The only way for real security improvements is to elect Democrats.

Posted by: BillS at March 30, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #136992

Rocky,

Do you only read the first sentences of my posts?

Posted by: Loren at March 30, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #136993

“The dems simply don’t have the will to do any meaningful security. This has been made quite obvious by their actions.”

Nunya,
What actions, specifically? Since we havn’t been in charge for quite some time, not at all since the “new age” of security concerns being top drawer issues, just wondering how were to blame again.

Rocky,
Wow, your a commie Marxist for floating the idea that workers are more than just replacable parts in the corporate machine.
Welcome!


Jack,
Meaningless, huh? Like the past 5 SOTU speeches?
How’s that mission to mars going?
Energy independence?
Deficit reduction?
Where’s WaldOsama?
How could ANY political promises be more meaningless than every word out of bush’s mouth?

Posted by: Norby at March 30, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #136995

Sooner or later the American voter will wake up and see that none of these bozos from either side of the aisle actually represent the American people.

Reps used to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

Yeah, right.

Democrats were known as tax and spenders. Socially responsible? Whatever.

Neither of these two parties is the least bit interested in the security of the United States, except where it might affect their ability to be elected by their “constituency”.

Ross Perot may have been a certifiable nut case, but at least he was a different nut case.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #136997

Rocky,
Your right, but you hit on a important theme.
They only worry about issues if WE make them vital to their reelection.
If we communicate that WE WANT REAL SECURITY, they might do the right things by accident.
Unfortunately, were stuck with 2 parties. Total revamping of the system is unlikely. So working with what we got is our only real choice.

Posted by: Norby at March 30, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #137005

Norby,

Revamping the system would be un-nescessary if we were able to hold the guys and gals we elect to office accountable for their screw-ups.

These recent indictments are probably the mere tip of the iceberg.

I think that no one should get more than one six year term. That would be for all elected officials.

I can’t imagine that the founders could have belived in the concept of a carreer politician, what’s more I think that they would have found the idea abhorrent at best.

Now some of you may whine about the restriction of your freedom of choice, well sorry, your choices affect the rest of us as well.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #137008

How to pay for real security?
Getting back the 12 billion in corporate welfare for the oil companies is a good start. Repealing Paris Hilton’s tax cut would go a long way. Defense cuts? Sure, how about that bonehead star wars project that will never work for starters?

Posted by: BillS at March 30, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #137009

Beware the military industrial complex.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #137024

the quote was by a great president dwight david eisenhower january 1961

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 30, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #137027

Hard to imagine that they were that much smarter in 1961 than we are now.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #137038

rocky absolutely right! hey rusty just a little info about president eisenhower i understand he was not in your lifetime he was in mine and 130 million more americans. he was a graduate of west point. a world war 1 veteran earning the rank of major .he was the supreme allied commander in europe in world war 2 or general of the army his rank was a six star general. he was offered the medal of honor but refused it. after world war 2 he became the first supreme commander of NATO . in 1948 he was courted by the democrats to run for president he graciously declined the offer.in 1952 he decieded to run as a republican because of his boyhood idol president lincoln. he won big. he balanced the budget in both terms as president he would not lower taxes!he created the highway bill the freeways that we drive on today. he made the peace in korea. in 1954 when the french were losing vietnam they demanded our troops there he said NO! and did not involve our troops there. the next 2 presidents did that! some of his quotes ( dont join the book burners do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed dont be afraid to go into a library and read every book!) ( you do not lead by hitting people over the head that’s assault not leadership!) ( i despise all abjectives that try to describe liberal or conservative rightist or leftist, as long as they stay in the useful part of the road!) ( every gun that is made every warship launched, every rocket signifies in a final sense a theft from those that hunger and are not fed those who are cold and are not clothed) BTW he also created NASA in 1958. his accomplishments could fill this whole blog. after his 2 terms were over in 1961 at the age of 71. the next two presidents john kennedy and lyndon johnson would call on him for his advice and were good friends of his through the years.president eisenhower died on march 28 1969 78 years of age he is today considered as a great top ten presidents of all time.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 31, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #137072

Darren
I was also against the war.
I know there are cultural differences. I just don’t care about other cultures enough to place them ahead of my own country.

Regarding democracy - our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic which would represent everybody.
In a democracy, majority rules and that is what our country has become, a failing democracy. People only support the democracy idea, when majority rules supports their position. The very idea that govt can force people to accept your beliefs but cannot force you to accept others is hypocritical and wrong.

As for this topic, we pretty much agree. My feeling is that “Real Security” is obviously taking a back seat to votes.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #137077
All we have been hearing from the lefties (well, other than Bush bashing) is that we need to cut military spending.

kctim, I haven’t heard Dems call for military cuts since 1994.

You know what I really like about the Democrat’s security agenda: going after bin Laden — you know, the guy who attacked America.

That’s a huge change from the Republican’s policy: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority,” and “I am truly not that concerned about him.”

Posted by: American Pundit at March 31, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #137116

AP,

That one stood out for me too. I think if they just latch onto that one they will do ok in November. The current administration, for whatever reason, does not see OBL as a threat and has openly said as much. It is really not about being a threat or not, it is about bringing the people who actually attacked us to justice.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 31, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #137140

AP, JayJay
What is it that the democrats would do to get OBL that the Republicans are not?
Now remember, I am all for getting OBL and torturing him until he dies and I was against going into Iraq. I really am curious how the dems would differ on capturing him and not just bashing the left on with this question.
Do you know what covert ops our military is doing right now to get him? I doubt it.
So, other than a full scale invasion force will have to be used to flush him out or the Dems will have to broadcast their every move to get him, in order to differ from the current plan. A plan which none of us knows.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #137173
Do you know what covert ops our military is doing right now to get him? I doubt it.

I do. Zilch. It doesn’t serve GW political agenda anymore.

Posted by: Loren at March 31, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #137255

Thanks Loren.
I’m not priviledged enough to be included in on our military’s secret operations.
Glad you are. Please keep us updated.

Posted by: kctim at April 1, 2006 10:12 AM
Post a comment