Redstate

talk in platitudes, and say that the EU and the UN are the main players in stopping Iran?  John Kerry is the Grand Pubah of multi-lateral doublespeak, but their party is full of adepts.  They'll excuse their apathy and lack of will by saying that it's someone else's problem.  Thinking you can somehow corner them is wishful thinking.  They don't win elections on ideas, so don't for a moment discount their ability to doubletalk and avoid taking a concrete position.  They are always looking for a heads I win, tails you loose situation, and standing on principal (unless it is for some blatant socialistic policy), or acting before it is too late is not in their repertoire.  You are thinking of some Democrat that has not been in office for thirty years if you think asking a simple question will expose them.  

Let's face it...the Democratic party is AWOL on national security, just as they were in the years after JFK until Reagan won the Cold War.

The Democratic party will simply not support any strong stance against Iran, because to them it's not politically expedient.  They literally put their own ambition above national security.

Most Dems couldn't care less about our safety, only that they are in power.

Well, if the Democrats claim to be wiser now, they need to be asked point-blank: are the Iranians dangerously close to getting nuclear weapons in the next 2-3 years, or sooner?

My question is, why on earth would any Democrat answer this?  They'll just say they need more information, accuse the President of obstructing their efforts to view the relevant intelligence, bring up every last memo that they didn't see during the Iraq runup as evidence that the President cannot be trusted, and so forth.

And you know what?  They'll win that battle.  And then they'll rub it in by saying that Bush went after a non-threat in Iraq while ignoring the real one in Iran.  And they'll win that one, too.

There's really no way that Bush can win with Iran, politically speaking.  The battle's already lost.  

The media is the main enabler of the Democrats and their dishonesty, their obstruction, their ability to place national security at risk.

If not for the media, the Dems would not have a chance with their lame tactics.  But the media spins everything towards the Dems, and against the Republicans, esp. Pres Bush.

The media surely is the best ally that the terrorists have in this war, which is really a war of wills.  The terrorists cannot possibly triumph with might or power or resources; they can only test our wills.  And it is the media that is the main force in seeking to undermine our will to fight in this country.

Defeat the liberal media and you win the War on Terror.

The politics of it are all on his side as I see it.  Here is a piece of how I analyzed it in another thread right after the Murtha Resolution vote..

The Administration has a chance now to do to the Dems exactly what the House leadership did.  If the President comes out hard against Iran in the State of the Union, the Dems will be in the position of gambling with US security based on their BUSH LIED! hysterics, or becoming even bigger hawks then the Republicans so as not to upset the voters before a critical election.  I think the House vote proves they will choose the latter.

I think we also need to realize what Pres Bush already does: that in life there are more important things than politics.

Whether it is politically wise to go after Iran is not the paramount issue.  Whether it is imperative from a national security standpoint to go after Iran is the key question.

Let's imagine a nuclear armed Iran in the Middle East.  That's not a scenario we can afford.

Bottom line: either Israel or the US must deal with Iran with some form of force.  It is wishful thinking to imagine the madman who is Pres of Iran will actually yield to diplomatic pressure.  It's like Neville Chamberlain trusting Hitler to warm up to his appeals for peace.

You can fool some of the people (about 35%) all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Sooner of later, the house of cards the Democrats have built with their national security critcisms is going to collapse.

Until they leak it to the NYT and read it in the paper a year later when the author is about to hawk his new book.

http://jewishworldreview.com/1205/steyn121905.php3

It's laugh out loud funny.

And here's a teaser:

"One day Iraq will be a G7 member hosting the Olympics in the world's No. 1 luxury vacation resort of Fallujah, and the Defeaticrat Party will still be running around screaming it's a quagmire. It's not just that Iraq is going better than expected, but that it's a huge success that's being very deftly managed: The timeframe imposed on the democratic process turns out to have worked very well -- the transfer of sovereignty, the vote on a constitutional assembly, the ratification of the constitution, the vote for a legislature -- and, with the benefit of hindsight, it now looks like an ingeniously constructed way to bring the various parties on board in the right order: first the Kurds, then the Shia, now the Sunni. That doesn't leave many folks over on the other side except Zarqawi and Dean. What do the two have in common? They're both foreigners, neither of whom have the slightest interest in the Iraqi people."

n/t

You are so correct...the NYT is nothing more than a leftist propaganda outlet.

The sad thing is that the NYT can dictate the media agenda for other outlets.  In essence, the NYT is invested with far more power than it deserves or the people ever intended.

They can play up a story and create a controversy where there is none by simply giving it attention.  They could run an article stating that Bush eats Corn Flakes for breakfast, as if that were something wrong, and then people would around blasting Bush for eating Corn Flakes.

The NYT has way too much power; we need to strip it of that.  The only way to do that is to realize that the NYT doesn't have to dictate the media agenda.

but he's definetly wiser.  Today's press conference was a revelation,he's fighting back and who do you think will take the first backward step?  If more forceful action must be taken i would expect something along the lines of the original Senate vote followed by a more attentive and aggresive Administration public stance.  Bush will still be able to count on Democratic cowardice, afraid in any numbers to say no, but this time around no free PR ride for them.  

of a news article a few years ago about the Bush Administration calling for "regime change" at the New York Times, and being worried about the coming "cubicle-to-cubicle" fighting our troops would face in the attack.

As I understand it, we were hoping U.S. presence in Iraq on Iran's border would allow diplomatic pressure to work--It hasn't worked.

Now, I ask as simple question:

How can we justify going into Iraq if we don't go after Iran??

After all, we went into Iraq because of their ties to terror groups and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has made it clear: they want weapons of mass destruction and they are supporters of terror.

So thanks again Redstate for addressing this issue. We must stop Iran.

are more dangerous than the Iranian islamofascists. At least the islamofascists are open int heir contempt and hatred for a free society. The defeatocrats are busy little bees snivelling around and looking for ways to stab us all in the back.

Before we all jump on the bandwagon of bashing the D's for something that they have not done yet, why don't we admit that we cannot confront Iran militarily without a new plan?  Iraq has clearly demonstrated that Dr. Thomas Barnett's bifurcated military with a leviathan force and a sysadmin force, is what we really need if we are going to democratize the Middle East.

As Barnett puts it, we have a military that completely kicks butt like nobody's business for the first half, but we do not currently have a team to play the second half.

Another thing, if we are truly in a war that is as critical as WWII, which I believe it is, then there is no reason not to have a draft.  There is a reason that the Constitution confers Congress (not the President) with the power to declare war.  War is serious business, and if our nation is to engage in war, then we should all be required to participate.  After 911, any competent administration could have mustered such support.

I always thought that was either P.T. Barnham or W.C. Fields. Thanks for the correction.

P.T. did say, "If you want to make a living, you have to put on a good show."

and

W.C. did say, "Just looking for loopholes." (Fields, reading the Bible on his deathbed.

Whether we like it or not.

Clearly, everyone including Bush would rather not have it. However Ahmadinejad's ravings and the sad attempt to kill him ala Hitler's desperate Prussian Generals shows the stakes.

Ahmadinejad is determined to wipe Isreal off the map; but us as well. He doesn't have enough nukes to kill us all but certainly does have enough by now (or soon will) to take out several US cities and figures were are "weak and wicked enough" for us simply to collapse. Bin Laden thought the same thing and that 9/11 would cause us to collapse and end up as his slaves or something.

While we understand little about these regimes, they understand even less about us. They have no idea of our power, size, and strength. They believe Dallas re-runs and the Daily Show plus CNN are an accurate picture of our politics and society, and it's a fatal miscalculation.

Reps offered a resolution in the Senate condemning Iran's Holocaust denial and wish to erase Israel from the Map, and Dems refused to vote for it.

REFUSED TO VOTE FOR IT.

That should tell you right there where Dems are at. They can't even muster up the guts to back Israel's right to exist against a Holocaust denying lunatic with nukes.

But like I said we'll get war with Iran. Ahmadinejad will make certain of it. Don't think we hold the initiative. He does.

Well, if the Democrats claim to be wiser now, they need to be asked point-blank: are the Iranians dangerously close to getting nuclear weapons in the next 2-3 years, or sooner?

You could take this many steps further in 2008 with Hillary, such as: "Will you promise that - regardless of what knowledge or intelligence you have regarding any other nation's WMD status and regardless of what claims or threats the leaders of that nation are making against us or our allies - you will ONLY send in US troops if they are part of a UN-led invasion force?"

After all, isn't that the standard they seem to want to hold Bush to? As soon as her answer starts with "Well of course I would reserve the right to..." then you immediately hit her with "And how is this any different than what President Bush's position was?"

For Dems in 2006 you can ask some simpler questions:

• "Will you attempt to cut off any funding to the military to continue operating in Iraq?"
  
• "Will you vote against funding of or support of any future military operation outside our soil unless it's under UN mandate?"
  

Don't accept any answer other than YES else call them hypocrits.