Friday, October 28, 2005
The Boston Globe: The Downies Have a "National Security Plan"
The Downies have lost the last two presidential elections, and won the previous two with less than a majority of the vote, and lost the three elections before that, and continue to lose congressional and Senate elections, because the vast majority of the American people do not trust that party to protect them from foreign threats, particularly after 9/11 and while we are in a war against Islamic extremism.
But, in preparation for the 2006 midterm elections, Downies have a new "National Security Plan." Ready for this one?
Democratic leaders offer a national security plan
Notice that story is headlined "Proposal aims for reduction of troops in Iraq." Which means that once the troops are back, the Downies have no further plans for "national security."
But check out the Downies and their plan:
1. A 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security.
2. The creation of a domestic intelligence agency.
3. A Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Homeland security certainly needs more spending - but where does it come from? Are Downies calling for cuts elsewhere? Nope.
We already HAVE a cabinet-level overseer of domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence. Downies want overkill and more bureaucracy.
And a "cabinet-level ranking" for FEMA...which does what for national security?
But if you read the story, you will see the Downies' true feelings:
"The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops."
WTF?
The Downies are "basically supportive"? What in the name of hell does that mean? Aren't the liberals always telling us that even if they hate the war, they support the troops? How can you "basically" support the troops? That means they only partially support them.
So, here is the Downies' "national security" plan for 2006:
The Downies have lost the last two presidential elections, and won the previous two with less than a majority of the vote, and lost the three elections before that, and continue to lose congressional and Senate elections, because the vast majority of the American people do not trust that party to protect them from foreign threats, particularly after 9/11 and while we are in a war against Islamic extremism.
But, in preparation for the 2006 midterm elections, Downies have a new "National Security Plan." Ready for this one?
Democratic leaders offer a national security plan
WASHINGTON -- A year after failing to convince most voters that Democrats can protect the United States, party leaders yesterday issued the outlines of a new national security message built on plans to reduce US troops in Iraq and sharply increase security spending at home.
Separately, Clinton administration secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright delivered a report to top Democratic congressional leaders calling for a 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security, the creation of a domestic intelligence agency, and a Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[...]
"We are all looking at the Iraq issue, how to make America safe and not leave the situation in complete chaos," Albright added, echoing many of Kerry's themes. "The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops. We would like to see an Iraq that is stable and relatively democratic."
Notice that story is headlined "Proposal aims for reduction of troops in Iraq." Which means that once the troops are back, the Downies have no further plans for "national security."
But check out the Downies and their plan:
1. A 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security.
2. The creation of a domestic intelligence agency.
3. A Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Homeland security certainly needs more spending - but where does it come from? Are Downies calling for cuts elsewhere? Nope.
We already HAVE a cabinet-level overseer of domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence. Downies want overkill and more bureaucracy.
And a "cabinet-level ranking" for FEMA...which does what for national security?
But if you read the story, you will see the Downies' true feelings:
"The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops."
WTF?
The Downies are "basically supportive"? What in the name of hell does that mean? Aren't the liberals always telling us that even if they hate the war, they support the troops? How can you "basically" support the troops? That means they only partially support them.
So, here is the Downies' "national security" plan for 2006:
"Vote Downie in 2006: We Basically Support the Troops."
