I recently heard Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid talking about the need for a "government of reconciliation" in Iraq. I think that's Democratese for throwing up one's hands in surrender and in rejoicing in defeat. I say "rejoicing in defeat" because it appears that's one thing the Democrats tend to do best, as when america does poorly, the Democrats tend to do well. So the current bumps experienced in our war on terror are good news to Reid and his fellow Democrats.
I recall when the infamous Jimmy Carter was president and things went so badly for american then, Carter, being trained as an engineer, found it necessary to devise a "misery index" so he could quantify exactly how much americans were suffering under the Democrat's rule. Back in those days, the Democrats had control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, a fact that could be readily ascertained by the state of the nation.
Yes, gas prices today are high. But back in those golden years of Democrats being at the helm, gas prices weren't only high, there was a gas shortage. Cars would wait in line for hours to buy gas and in some places it was so bad that service stations alternated days of selling gas to vehicles with odd and even-numbered license plates.
Yes, today america is at war, fighting in Iraq as well as afghanistan after sustaining an attack in New York and Washington that took nearly 1,000 more lives than the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Back in the 1970s when the Democrats ruled the roost, Iran attacked america by overrunning the U.S. embassy and taking 66 american diplomats hostage and holding them for a year and two months, while Carter and the Democrats dithered about what to do. In the end Carter approved a poorly conceived and badly undermanned "rescue mission" that resulted in the loss of four aircraft and the ignominious and wasteful death of six american service men without achieving anything else. Iran finally released the diplomats on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, because I think they understood that Reagan would do whatever was necessary to free the american hostages.
at every opportunity the Democratic vultures are attempting to undermine the current administration's foreign policy. It doesn't matter what the Bush administration proposes in terms of domestic or foreign initiatives, the Democrats are opposed to it on principle. Everything from monitoring international communications among suspected terrorists in the U.S., to extending the Patriot act, to holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to funding troops in Iraq, to who is running the terminals in our ports, the Democrats somehow attempt to undermine it. and while we are on the ports deal, it's interesting to note that Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton is shrilly opposed to Dubai Ports World (DPW) running six port terminals in the U.S. on national security grounds, Clinton's husband is a paid advisor to DPW, acting as an unregistered lobbyist and advising the company on how to make the deal work.
Clinton's presidency, like Carter's, was also a disaster for america in that the Clinton administration saw international terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, rather than a defense issue, allowing al Qaeda to flourish under the protection of the Taliban in afghanistan and americans are now forced to clean up the Clinton administration's mess. The only good thing that happened under Clinton was that americans started to wise up to the fact that the Democrats were a toxic concoction of leftist whackos attempting to foist an uncertain agenda on the country and as a result the Republicans managed to take the Senate as well as the House.
Today's democrats are getting smarmier and smarmier. I can hardly stand to watch Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin on television without first taking blood-pressure medication. Their theatrics are not about what's good for america, but what's good for the party. as such, they would do anything, up to and including surrendering to terrorism, just to regain their faded power.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement