General discussion

Locked

How would a Democrat President. . . . .

By maxwell edison ·
.....handle the ?war against terrorism? ? including the war in Iraq, the tensions with Iran, Homeland Security, Middle-East policy, border security, etc.

As a disclaimer, I?m of the firm belief that the ?attacks? directed at President Bush are 99.9% political, and only .1% substance. I?m also a firm believer that ?those in the know? realize the dangerous world in which we live, the real threat Radical Islam (and Iran) poses, the ?state of war? Iran is actually waging against the USA, etc., and ANY Democrat president would do little or nothing different.

Fast forward to January 2009, assume that President Bush?s policies and actions aren?t much different than they are today, assume that the Democrats won the White House and retained control of Congress. What will a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress do in February 2009?

Also as a disclaimer: Anyone who has the gall to suggest that they (Democrats) will maintain the ?wrong? status quo ONLY because it?s a course President Bush has put us on deserves ?the idiot link?. So don?t even go there unless it?s to suggest that the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites and dishonest, disingenuous demagogues to ever live.

So, if President Bush is ?doing it all wrong?, what would the Democrats do that is ?doing it all right?? So far, after listening to all of them for so long, I really don?t have a clue. (Joe Biden, however, does have a specific course he would try to implement; but of course, I have a better chance to being elected President than him.)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

49 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

They'd have started burying their heads in the sand 12 Sept 2001

by Absolutely In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

We'd all be fully underground by now.

"Mission Accomplished" would not be the phrase used, but something similar would have been declared, and it would have been equally untrue.

Collapse -

Maybe not the one elected but...

by JackOfAllTech In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

I'm sure not all Democrats are the same but all I see from most of them is a rabid, unreasoning, unsubstantiated hatred for President Bush. I firmly believe that most of them, if given the chance, would reverse ALL of his policies regardless of the consequences to America simply because they are HIS policies.

If I didn't believe that God is in control I would be very afraid of what this country will be like in five years.

Ralph

Collapse -

Democrats

by neilb@uk In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

I'm only going to comment on the "War on Terror" for now and, OK, we are starting from the fact that I don't agree with you about the "War on Terror". I believe that even to describe it as a "War" legitimises and glamorises it in a way that it doesn't warrant. As it's been promoted by GWB, it's the best recruitment possible for the terrorists.

What about the Democrats? I would have reckoned that a Democratic administration or even a slightly less gung-ho and more circumspect Republican administration would not have gone into Iraq.

That then questions how much of the tension with Iran is due to your invasion of their next-door-neighbour? Were I an Iranian, I'd be frightened of the US administration's actions and words over the previous five years. I might want to explore the option of nuclear weapons given that the possession of same seems to have benefited North Korea.

As for Iraq now; if you have a Democratic President next time around, I reckon that he (or she) will probably formulate a knee-jerk exit strategy for Iraq based on US political motives rather than Iraqi needs and that will end badly, too.

I don't think you can win this one with either flavour in power and even a draw is pretty unlikely but you might get a better exit strategy for Iraq with a Republican in power if only because guilt keeps the troops there.

If Al Gore - who has now been over here - is an example of your democrats then we're all doomed. What a smug GIT!

I'll have to Google Joe Biden next time it rains.

Collapse -

A Democrat...............hmmmmmm?

by liljasper142 In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

The body of democrats have already made clearly known that their intention is to surrender and leave Iraq and elsewhere and bring the troops home before a stable Iraq can be completed thereby emboldening any and all anti-America factions to do whatever and wherever they want. Bad idea for those who still love a sovereign and constitutional America.

Collapse -

Now be fair

by jdclyde In reply to A Democrat............... ...

They will "retreat", not "surrender".

They will then TRY to blame Bush for the following blood bath as genocide sweeps Iraq as they stand there and do nothing like the worms they are.

Their Bushphobia is going to really hurt US badly.

Collapse -

There are a lot of candidates

by Support Gal In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

I think you meant to say January 2009, not 2008. The election isn't until November 2008.

I get a little annoyed today when I hear that so many people are now not backing the president or the war. We had a chance as a nation to say we felt the war was wrong in 2004. Bush took his victory as evidence the nation was OK with what he was doing. While I didn't vote for him, that's how I took it as well. We know nothing now we didn't know in 2004. He said it would take a long time and we would have to sacrifice. Well he was right.

It sounds like you already believe that the current surge will not make a difference and in 2009 we will be in same boat we are in now. I'm in hopes that we will finally get Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other allies in the region to help use broker deals and help Iraq govern. But the opposite could happen and we could be in a full out world war by then. Predicting the future is tough stuff.

Back to the question, I don't think all Democrats would do the same thing just as I don't think all Republicans would do the same thing. For example, I don't think John McCain, had he been elected in 2000, would have gone to Iraq. Now that we are there I think he will have different reactions, if he is elected, than say Giuliani or Romney might.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for at this point. There are some that I trust and some that I don't and I've changed my mind about a few. While I want to vote democrat depending on who each party offers, I may vote republican. November 2008 is a long way away. Hopefully we will be in much better shape by then.

Collapse -

Thank you for pointing out. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to There are a lot of candid ...

.....my error. (I corrected it.)

Collapse -

If Obama is elected

by DanLM In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

He will pull us from Iraq in 3 months no matter what the consequences. He also won't do squat if there is another attack on the homeland. Edwards will do the same thing. Neither of them have a clue. As far as that goes, those two twits will pull us from Afghanistan. They have no balls, none whats so ever.

Clinton will most likely pull us from Iraq, but in a phased fashion. She will not change any of the War On Terror strategy. Including the NSA policies.

Dan

Collapse -

Democrats v. Republicans

by normhaga In reply to How would a Democrat Pres ...

It used to be that Democrats pushed social programs to address problems in this country and Republicans pushed war to hide those issues. That changed with President Clinton who had his Bosnian war and who fired one Tomahawk missile for each day he was in office and disarmed the county by not replacing those missiles and other weapons used.

Regarding President Clinton, Bill held the title but Bill and Hillary were the team. If Hillary were reelected (very possible due to the female vote) we would see something similar to the Clinton legacy.

With the Republicans, I see no change in the status quo. Lip service only.

The Clinton legacy started the country down the road where the disaffected and disenfranchised began losing the few rights they had. The Bush legacy found a plausible (at the time) reason to further this course of action. In support of this, I only point out the Patriot Act; there are other actions if you look.

The question I pose to you is: Does the vote matter, especially in light of electronic voting with no standard of accountability? Do parties mean anything? And, should we not look at Thomas Jefferson and his radical views regarding how often a country needs to overthrow its government?

Collapse -

My answers to your questions

by maxwell edison In reply to Democrats v. Republicans

You asked, "Does the vote matter, especially in light of electronic voting with no standard of accountability?"

Yes, the vote does matter. If ~300 people in Florida had voted a different way in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected president, and we wouldn't have had to put up with the recent media orgasm over his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and we wouldn't have to be putting up with the current stupid and insane Concerts for the Climate (or whatever stupid "cause" they're doing nothing about). Moreover, without those ~300 votes, the Democrats would have had nothing over which to start their hate-affair with GWB.

You asked, "Do parties mean anything?"

Parties mean EVERYTHING. People who vote "person over party" overlook a very significant reality -- the party with control of Congress has the upper-hand; it chairs all the committees; it sets the agenda; it presents bills for consideration; it confirms presidential nominations; it can initiate investigations (regardless of the merit or lack thereof); and on it goes.

You asked, "And, should we not look at Thomas Jefferson and his radical views regarding how often a country needs to overthrow its government?"

I certainly wouldn't call those views radical, especially when put in the context of Jefferson's time. Moreover, his sentiment is right-on. When a government, for example, can act as a power broker to take money (by force and coercion) from one citizen -- literally take the fruits of a person's labor (which is slavery, at worst, indentured servitude, at best) -- for the sole purpose of giving that money to another citizen who did not earn it, especially when the transfer is tantamount to the payment of a bribe -- money in exchange for a vote -- then it's time to take Mr. Jefferson's sentiment to heart. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, Mr. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he were alive today to see the massive infringements on individual liberty ? especially when it?s done in the name of freedom and democracy!

The time to take back individual liberty is long overdue. However, I believe it can be done peacefully and without shots being fired, and within the framework of our system ? something Mr. Jefferson would probably be astonished to see, since it means his ?experiment? is still breeding success after more than two hundred years. On one hand, Mr. Jefferson would be appalled to see what's come of his (and others') creation; on the other hand, however, he would be quite pleased to see it still alive and well.

Back to Security Forum
49 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums