"What's your plan?"
We have a plan for victory. We have a plan to secure this country, and part of our plan is to send Jim Talent back to the United States Senate.
By AcademicElephant Posted in 2006 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
President Bush made two stops in Missouri today with Senator Jim Talent. As always, Mr. Bush thrives under pressure, and has put in some memorable performances over the past few days (there is a reason, you know, that he tends to win elections). He provided an excellent series of reasons to support Senator Talent, focused on the target campaign issues of the economy (strong) and national security (stronger), and then pointed out that the Democrat plan for the country is to have no plan:
On this vital issue, on the issue that will determine the security of this country, the Democrats have taken a calculated gamble. They believe that the only way they can win this election is to criticize us and offer no specific plan of their own. Here's how one Democrat senior describes their strategy: "The election is about them," this person said. So far the Democrats have refused to tell us their plan on how they're going to secure the United States. There's still four days left before the election, and there's still time for the Democrats to tell the American people their plan to prevail in this war on terror.
So if you happen to bump into a Democrat candidate, you might want to ask this simple question: What's your plan? If they say they want to protect the homeland, but oppose the Patriot Act, ask them this question: What's your plan? (Laughter.) If they say they want to uncover terrorist plots, but oppose listening in on terrorist conversations, ask them this question: What's your plan? If they say they want to stop new attacks on our country, but oppose letting the CIA detain and question the terrorists who might know what those plots are, ask them this question: What's your plan? If they say they want to win the war on terror, but call for America to pull out from what al Qaeda says is the central front in this war, ask them this question: What's your plan?
AUDIENCE: What's your plan?
THE PRESIDENT: The truth is, the Democrats can't answer that question. Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory. Second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.) We have a plan for victory. We have a plan to secure this country, and part of our plan is to send Jim Talent back to the United States Senate. (Applause.)
The President has a great stump speech. It's serious and wide-ranging but still engaging and inspiring. As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats are welcome to make this election a referendum on Mr. Bush. They have offered no alternative; they have deliberately chosen to offer nothing. And nothing doesn't get you lower taxes, 4.4% unemployment and, most importantly, no terrorist attacks on the homeland since 9/11. Rather than carefully keeping out of voters' sight like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bob Casey, Jr. or John Kerry, Mr. Bush will be on a non-stop campaign sweep through Tuesday. Just keep giving that speech, sir. It is, like you are, a winner.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | MD-SEN: New poll 47-47 tie. — Comments (33) »
"What's your plan?" 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy. I thought it was supposed to be Republican candidates were "running away from Bush". The Democrat candidates must be turning over every rock looking for the "New Leaders". Hopefully, they will just grab the first scum they come to. It would be an improvement.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
To use a football analogy, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al have gone the equivalent of 0-16 for three consecutive seasons regarding Iraq. I believe it's time for a new coach--or at least a new GM to oversee the current coach... www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Oh look, another garden-variety baby troll looking for attention.
Enjoy your brief stay here at RedState Villages.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
This illustrates the difference between the Dem's and the Repub's.President Bush does not view the War On Terror as a Sunday afternoon,beer drinking casual pastime.To say we are 0-16, what the hell is that? If my non-nuanced mind recalls, was is not under Clinton that the military was cut to the bone? Not unlike what was done under that great diplomat Missa Carter's administration. The trouble with the Dem's,and there are many,there isn't a tyrant,dictator,merderous regime they won't defend. Regardless of the consequences to the U.S. Folks, we are in the fight for our collective lives. God Bless the USA.
This type of speech (the truth) is also the reason I voted in 2004 for Bush, my first Republican vote and is the reason I will vote for Allen in VA, I really do not care what the polls say I predict that the Senate will be 53 R with new Senator Steele and I was born and raised a Democrat in Baltimore so I know a little something about politics there. I also predict 218 in the House for R's with new congressman Negron from FL-16. I just do not believe that Americans will give up this fight on Islamic Terrorism by voting in the Democrats no matter what any MSM or pundit says Americans by and large are patriotic and know the history of the Dems, mark my words, the words of a security mom.
Peace through superior fire power:)
If you ever find yourself back on the dating scene. I'm thinking I like you...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
An eternal truth.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Not in asymmetic warfare. Big planes and guns aren't going to stop asymmetric terrorists.
Mutually assured destruction is a relic of the cold war. Frankly, terroists don't care how many bombs/guns/planes you have; their power comes from instilling fear in local populaces and then using public opinion to encourage the local populace to believe they are the 'good guys'.
For an excellent example, look at Afghanistan. That place has been bombed/strafed so many times that in many circumstances, we're just blowing up the same spot that we blew up two years ago. It accomplishes very little.
I agree that peace through superior firepower could in theory prevent regimes such as Iran and North Korea from thinking about continuing to develop nuclear weapons, but as it stands, these countries are smart enough to realize that as long as were are in Iraq, we simply do not have the army/funds/willpower to imply that we have superior firepower to dedicate to these activities. Argue all you want about whether it's a good thing or bad thing that this is true (I rather tend to think that the fact that we lack the willpower to confront Iran and North Korea right now with military bluster is a big negative), but let's realize that Iraq has a lot to do with this.
And yeah, there's not really a good solution either way in Iraq right now. We broke it, we bought it. Pulling out is stupid, but so is staying there for much longer. The idea that somehow the situation is going to magically change at this point is a bit absurd, at least I think. I've seen very little over the past three years that engenders a lot of trust in either the Iraqi or US administrations, at least in terms of their ability to turn this around.
That's not to say I don't like them - just that they haven't exactly done a sparkling job and I'm not sure why I should continue to hang on a 'just trust us, we have a plan to fix this, we just can't really articulate what that plan is' talking point.
But yeah, the Democractic solutions are a bit absurd at this point - in that there are none, but then again, is a history of bad planning better than no plan? I have no idea.
Why continue simple bombing and strafing runs? Start levelling whole towns and villages. It worked with the Japanese and Germans, and I daresay they were a tad more fervent in their war efforts than the terrorists were...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
I think you're looking at this from a very mid-20th century frame of mind.
Wholescale destruction of towns and villages isn't going to work in the WoT. It's a very WWII way of looking at a new problem. The problem is - terrorism does not have an ultimate state sponsor. It has many state sponsors that you could consider bit players, but unfortunately Al Qaeda does not have any territorial claims. That's the biggest problem.
Look, I understand the premise. You get hit in the mouth, you punch back. The important question is - who the hell do you hit back? It's not as simple as looking at the borders of Germany, pointing at Dresden, and going - hey, that looks like a good idea. We simply can't bomb every town and village that supports terrorism into the ground. We simply cannot. We don't have the firepower. Not to mention this would involve invading at least 15-20 countries simultaneously.
the city of Fallujah and Sadr City come quickly to mind, and you'll find - believe it or not - that the residents of a thousand other towns will suddenly find reasons NOT to support/hide terrorists. You don't need to bomb EVERY town and village, three or four would do nicely.
My favorite W.Churchill quote goes something like: I don't care if they like us or respect us as long as they fear us.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
When fighting totalitarian enemies, we have always fought by rules of war, while our enemies have fought to win!
Someone collaborates with our enemy, we bring the suspect in and question them. Someone is suspected of collaborating with us and our enemies kill 50 people as a lesson.
We are too good a people to do what sometimes is necessary in war to win.
or Frankfurt, Cologne, Tokyo, et al.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
and the US media was on our side!
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
1) Wholesale destruction of villages hasn't been tried. You don't know it won't work. We haven't even hit known combatants in Iraq hard. We've played pattycake twice now with Sadr without even bloodying his nose.
2) There are one or two main sponsors of terror, and we haven't gone after either of them. The rest take their lead from those two. Take down Iran, which is where this whole mess started way back in '78, and take a hard line against the Saudi's instead of selling our birthright for a barrel of oil, and the other so called state sponsors will wither on the unsupported vine.
3) Al Qaeda does have a territorial claim, they just have a bunch of front men. They've setup shop in "the outer provinces" of Pakistan, where Pakistan is afraid to send troops to assert their control of the region. A real military attack against this Al Qadae territory and they will fold too.
America still hasn't learned the real lesson of Vietnam, a war that Patton understood well: You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other [censored] die for his, and not worrying about what borders you cross in the process of killing the [censored]. Until we re-learn that lesson, we won't win any more wars.
So long as he could secure an Ike to shield him from the Politicians, he would OWN the GWOT...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
The Mongols conquered the region by building pyramids of skulls from the people in cities that resisted them. The Sunnis were in such a rush to surrender they practically invented the revolving door 700 years early.
B52s carpet bombing a stronghold will have much the same effect.
you are only partially correct; its difficult to get to the individual terrorist. But that doesn't mean you have to give up; you make it "crystal clear" to everyone that the price to be paid for harboring, supporting or even tolerating terrorists is simply too high for them to pay. To paraphrase Churchill I do not require, expect or even desire that they like me, only that they leave me alone; and if the only way to accomplish that is to instill absolute fear then so be it.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I was worried the Democrats hadn't settled on an articulate, thoughtful leader, and then MinorRipper rode to the rescue. But just a little coaching so your next performance is even more polished. The 0-16 football analogy doesn't quite work, but this one might, 0 for 5. That's how many terrorist attacks we've had over the last five years on our soil, to the great disappointment of the hate-Bush crowd. That one recognition would at least let the world know there is one honest Democrat out there, now that Joe Lieberman is an Independent.
In some ways his has been such a strange Presidency for me, a Reagan/Goldwater Conservative. So much disappointment - domestic spending, campaign finance, prescription drug benefit - you know the litany.
But on the Four Big Issues - he has been absolute aces, as far as I am concerned: War on Terror, Judicial Selections (give him a mulligan on Harriet Miers), Tax Cuts/Supply Side and Electoral Success. When he is out there giving his all and speaking with such simplicity and character - it inspires me.
I am going to do a little more this weekend for the cause - starting with those phone calls.
God Bless You, President Bush and Vice President Cheney!!!!
A couple of thoughts:
1. We greeted the President enthusiastically. Very, very enthusiastically. The building roared. Organizers said that we blew Spfld away. GWB is still extraordinarily popular here in SW MO. (What Claire Idiot McCaskill calls Ashcroft Country. I think she means it as an insult, though I can't see how it could be one.)
2. The War on Terror parts of the speech were greeted with more enthusiasm than the economic parts. The judge comments were a very close second (maybe tied). I think those of us in this part of the world are happy with the tax cuts, but we see the WOT as a threat to our very existence and Judicial overreach as a threat to our representative gov't. Just my take.
And I was extremely pleased and proud to have been able to go see the Pres. (and got seats in the gold section - right behind the podium, though I would have really preferred being right in front of the podium except that they all had to stand up the entire 5 hours. Ouch)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
that I voted for in 2004... nice work, sir. Keep it up, and let's see more of this during the next two years! (Not the campaigning, obviously - the coming out strong against your opponents and giving inspiring speeches.)
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"