The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Laugh of the decade: Dems' "Real Security" Strategy
Today the Democrats came out with one of the most hilarious "policy statements" it has published in the last 30 years--the so called "Real Security" Strategy. Hugh Hewitt gives this absolute joke of a policy document its proper due by providing the most comprehensive coverage of the blogosphere's justifiably convulsive reaction to this "plan":
Everyone's talking about the Dems' "Real Security" strategy. The fact that a plan this flimsy is getting this much attention is the clearest testament I've seen in some time to the Democratic Party's lack of ideas.
Not even the NYT can bring itself to laud the "plan" to the high heavens:
Most of the proposals are not new. Many echo arguments put forward by Democrats and by their 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, including a demand for more military equipment and body armor for troops and improved veterans' benefits.
Jeff Harrell provides comprehensive and hilarious analysis:
Congressional Democrats today released "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," a "comprehensive plan" that consists of a ten-page PowerPoint deck.
Except it's really only five pages, because half the pages are in Spanish. Spanish on one side, English on the other. Like stereo instructions. I guess restoring our leadership to the world is something you can get at Ikea.
Except the first page is just a title card, and the second page is just a blurb. So really it's only three pages.
The Democrats' comprehensive plan for restoring the blah blah and protecting some other thing is actually three PowerPoint slides.
Tim Chapman takes note of Sen. John Cornyn's and Rep. John Boehner's press releases in response. If you read them carefully, I think you can actually hear Hill staff snickering in the backgound as they write each time they have to type "Democrats" and "security" in the same sentence.
Capt. Ed calls it an incoherent fantasy:
Let's get this straight. The Democrats want to retreat against al-Qaeda forces assembled in Iraq in order to invade Pakistan, which is where Osama is most likely spending his time. They want to run away from the operational forces of AQ in a fashion that will remind all of them of Somalia, Beirut, and Teheran -- proving Osama right about American tenacity. Going after Osama is a terrific goal, but unless they have a better plan than to flood Pakistan with special-forces teams and spies that Pervez Musharraf will consider an act of war, then this policy is doomed to failure.
Gateway Pundit has a round-up of all the whistly tunes that have changed today:
This, of course, is a new direction for the Dems. We are assuming that they they have put aside for now beliefs that:
*America's media is the enemy
* George Bush is the enemy
* personal property rights is the enemy
* Christians are the enemy
* Moderate Muslims are not the enemy
* Walmart is not the enemy
* Business is the enemy
* Republicans are the enemy
* The 10 Commandments are the enemy
* America is the enemy
...Who have I missed?
Dr. Sanity has written a song to commemorate the change of heart on the Left side of the aisle.
Wizbang: "Osama won't be intimidated by this bunch."
Hee. I wouldn't be scared of this, either.
Pundit Guy calls it making promises they can't keep:
When Democrats talk about a withdrawal from Iraq, its not about bringing troops home and preventing further death. It's not about freeing the Iraqi people from U.S. occupation. It's not about "playing nice" in the hopes that the French, Spanish and the Russians like us again. To Democrats, a withdrawal from Iraq is about stopping terrorism. They believe a redeployment of troops to other parts of the world sends a message of peace which will soften the hearts of terrorist groups and lessen the risk of further attacks. By pushing this "solution" the Democrats do nothing to disprove the fact that they completely misunderstand the terrorist mentality.
Bryan Preston wonders whether the Dems have ever met any Special Forces guys:
Democrats are going to "double the number of special forces"? Do they realize that the physical requirements that it takes to even merit special forces mean that it's nearly impossible to double the number of them? I forget the actual number, but the washout rate for special forces applicants is well over 50 percent (70 percent or above seems to be the going rate). To double the number who make it through, you're going to have to lower the standards. A lot. That'll sure help find bin Laden. But lowering standards does sound like something the Democrats could support.
From the other side, just for fun, AMERICAblog, Oliver, and My DD, which wants Dems to dream bigger.
Everyone's talking about the Dems' "Real Security" strategy. The fact that a plan this flimsy is getting this much attention is the clearest testament I've seen in some time to the Democratic Party's lack of ideas.
Not even the NYT can bring itself to laud the "plan" to the high heavens:
Most of the proposals are not new. Many echo arguments put forward by Democrats and by their 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, including a demand for more military equipment and body armor for troops and improved veterans' benefits.
Jeff Harrell provides comprehensive and hilarious analysis:
Congressional Democrats today released "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," a "comprehensive plan" that consists of a ten-page PowerPoint deck.
Except it's really only five pages, because half the pages are in Spanish. Spanish on one side, English on the other. Like stereo instructions. I guess restoring our leadership to the world is something you can get at Ikea.
Except the first page is just a title card, and the second page is just a blurb. So really it's only three pages.
The Democrats' comprehensive plan for restoring the blah blah and protecting some other thing is actually three PowerPoint slides.
Tim Chapman takes note of Sen. John Cornyn's and Rep. John Boehner's press releases in response. If you read them carefully, I think you can actually hear Hill staff snickering in the backgound as they write each time they have to type "Democrats" and "security" in the same sentence.
Capt. Ed calls it an incoherent fantasy:
Let's get this straight. The Democrats want to retreat against al-Qaeda forces assembled in Iraq in order to invade Pakistan, which is where Osama is most likely spending his time. They want to run away from the operational forces of AQ in a fashion that will remind all of them of Somalia, Beirut, and Teheran -- proving Osama right about American tenacity. Going after Osama is a terrific goal, but unless they have a better plan than to flood Pakistan with special-forces teams and spies that Pervez Musharraf will consider an act of war, then this policy is doomed to failure.
Gateway Pundit has a round-up of all the whistly tunes that have changed today:
This, of course, is a new direction for the Dems. We are assuming that they they have put aside for now beliefs that:
*America's media is the enemy
* George Bush is the enemy
* personal property rights is the enemy
* Christians are the enemy
* Moderate Muslims are not the enemy
* Walmart is not the enemy
* Business is the enemy
* Republicans are the enemy
* The 10 Commandments are the enemy
* America is the enemy
...Who have I missed?
Dr. Sanity has written a song to commemorate the change of heart on the Left side of the aisle.
Wizbang: "Osama won't be intimidated by this bunch."
Hee. I wouldn't be scared of this, either.
Pundit Guy calls it making promises they can't keep:
When Democrats talk about a withdrawal from Iraq, its not about bringing troops home and preventing further death. It's not about freeing the Iraqi people from U.S. occupation. It's not about "playing nice" in the hopes that the French, Spanish and the Russians like us again. To Democrats, a withdrawal from Iraq is about stopping terrorism. They believe a redeployment of troops to other parts of the world sends a message of peace which will soften the hearts of terrorist groups and lessen the risk of further attacks. By pushing this "solution" the Democrats do nothing to disprove the fact that they completely misunderstand the terrorist mentality.
Bryan Preston wonders whether the Dems have ever met any Special Forces guys:
Democrats are going to "double the number of special forces"? Do they realize that the physical requirements that it takes to even merit special forces mean that it's nearly impossible to double the number of them? I forget the actual number, but the washout rate for special forces applicants is well over 50 percent (70 percent or above seems to be the going rate). To double the number who make it through, you're going to have to lower the standards. A lot. That'll sure help find bin Laden. But lowering standards does sound like something the Democrats could support.
From the other side, just for fun, AMERICAblog, Oliver, and My DD, which wants Dems to dream bigger.
