Here we go again?

[billay]

From yesterday's speeches at the CPAC. (these are excerpts)

 

Romney says:

And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

 

To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve!

 

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

 

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

 

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

 

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

 

 

McCain says:

We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

 

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

 

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

 

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

 

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

 

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

 

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

 

To be fair, I have to point out that I cannot claim to have heard enough of Romney's speeches to know what is typical for him and what is not. I have listened to much, but not all of McCain's various addresses to the public. These comments seem to me to be a wholesale increase of rhetoric and fearmongering about Iraq, Iran, terrorism, and Jihad. It is all very reminiscent of Bush and Cheny's rhetoric, the "mushroom cloud" and terror alerts. (remember those?) and a "surrender to radical Islam and extremeism. I suppose it's possible that these comments (which constituted the emphasis of their speeches ISMO) were specifically targeted at the audience. This is the Conservative Political Action Committee after all But this seems to represent a shift in the the Republican strategy. Poll after poll indicates that Iraq and radical extremism are falling behind other domestic concerns on the minds of Americans. I'm not saying that no one cares about Iraq anymore, or finding Osama Bid Laden, but Romney was the "Economy Candidate" and now he's withdrawing from the race because "he cannot be a part of aiding a surrender to terror" This is "You're either with us or against us" talk. This is the kind of talk that got us where we are today.

 

When I heard people speak about McCain being another Bush, determined to spread democracy inn the middle east, I discounted it. Sure, he's a military man, but I never considered him the type to recklessly put our troops in harms way. When he says "He will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions" how can this mean anything but military action? I had hoped we were past all this.

Edited February 8, 2008 by billay

[AtomicCEO]

"And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat."

 

Expect to hear more of this for the next year. More of the same. Sad.

[tonorator]

it's the same rhetoric and approach from mccain that we've seen with bush and that is why he cannot get elected.

 

pulling out of iraq is not defeat, pulling out is a victory. we thought they had WMDs, we know now that they do not. mission accomplished.

[whomper]

it's the same rhetoric and approach from mccain that we've seen with bush and that is why he cannot get elected.

 

pulling out of iraq is not defeat, pulling out is a victory. we thought they had WMDs, we know now that they do not. mission accomplished.

 

 

A gradual return of our troops would be a great thing. Something we all want but I dont think it is as simple as what you say up above. I would rather have our troops home safe if we truly cant get anything accomplished by staying there but a retreat will no doubt appear defeat and be played up that way bigtime by Al Queda and the like

[Randall]

A gradual return of our troops would be a great thing. Something we all want but I dont think it is as simple as what you say up above. I would rather have our troops home safe if we truly cant get anything accomplished by staying there but a retreat will no doubt appear defeat and be played up that way bigtime by Al Queda and the like

 

 

So would I but McCain saying Iraq is like Korea and we'll stay for 100 years is scary.

[whomper]

So would I but McCain saying Iraq is like Korea and we'll stay for 100 years is scary.

 

 

Agree

[Savage Beatings]

I'm voting for Al Sharpton.

[driveby]

When I'm hunkered down in North Dakota with the rest of the surviving God fearing white folks, don't knock on the compound door and expect to get let in.

[AtomicCEO]

A gradual return of our troops would be a great thing. Something we all want but I dont think it is as simple as what you say up above.

 

Nothing is ever as simple as a politician says it is. If a politician ever got up in front of the public and spelled out a comprehensive detailed plan for success...

a. His rivals would find one small point and try to hammer him on it out-of-context (The "Az" approach)

b. His rivals would steal the good parts and call them their own. (Bush did this to Kerry)

c. They would be seen as long-winded, boring, and not a guy you'd want to have a beer with.

 

I don't think you can ever believe anyone ever about anything. Is that cynical?

[tonorator]

A gradual return of our troops would be a great thing. Something we all want but I dont think it is as simple as what you say up above. I would rather have our troops home safe if we truly cant get anything accomplished by staying there but a retreat will no doubt appear defeat and be played up that way bigtime by Al Queda and the like

 

who cares how they play it up? what impact does that have? i say play it up all you want. if they play it up to the point where our safety or direct interests are threatened, then we send in targeted forces again and remove the threat, just as we removed the threat of WMDs in iraq.

[whomper]

who cares how they play it up? what impact does that have? i say play it up all you want. if they play it up to the point where our safety or direct interests are threatened, then we send in targeted forces again and remove the threat, just as we removed the threat of WMDs in iraq.

 

 

You dont think a perceived victory wont fortify their efforts ? I dont think it would hurt their recruiting much. You let them think allah led them to victory over a "superpower" and see the morale go through the roof. I am not sure if you were joking or not with your wmd line. If you were I am sorry I jumped on it

[tonorator]

You dont think a perceived victory wont fortify their efforts ? I dont think it would hurt their recruiting much. You let them think allah led them to victory over a "superpower" and see the morale go through the roof. I am not sure if you were joking or not with your wmd line. If you were I am sorry I jumped on it

 

no joking.

 

all this fear of perceptions is bogus. fortify away if they want to, i don't care. let them act out or directly threaten us and then we can act decisively. simply occupying iraq and trying to make them a free democracy is a losing proposition that has nothing to do with whether al q feels fortified. as i said in the other thread, forcing us to occupy a country for years which is depleting our military, our morale, our economy, should be all the fortification al q needs. they are winning under this current approach.

[Randall]

You dont think a perceived victory wont fortify their efforts ? I dont think it would hurt their recruiting much. You let them think allah led them to victory over a "superpower" and see the morale go through the roof. I am not sure if you were joking or not with your wmd line. If you were I am sorry I jumped on it

 

 

In Bin Laden's manifetso before the war he predicted we would attack and occupy an arab oil rich country. Being there near their holy sites and siding with Israel plays up recruiting far more than leaving would.

 

If we left and gave the country back their recruiting defforts go down.

 

Iraq is in civil war. Al Qaeda is about 5-10% of the presence there. Don't believe the white house spin.

[whomper]

it's the same rhetoric and approach from mccain that we've seen with bush and that is why he cannot get elected.

 

pulling out of iraq is not defeat, pulling out is a victory. we thought they had WMDs, we know now that they do not. mission accomplished.

 

 

I assumed this was a joke..My bad.

 

let them act out or directly threaten us and then we can act decisively.

 

How can we act decisively if we failed the first go around ?

 

forcing us to occupy a country for years which is depleting our military, our morale, our economy, should be all the fortification al q needs. they are winning under this current approach.

 

Good point. I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we dont..Either way we look defeated and I think you downplay the significance of that..Bottom line though is if it is winless then lets get people home safely and stop wasting lives and Money

Edited February 8, 2008 by whomper

[TimC]

I'm voting for Al Sharpton.

 

Because you have the same hair?

[tonorator]

How can we act decisively if we failed the first go around ?

 

we can't guarantee anything, but i think we are smarter. hopefully our intel efforts can head off any terrorist attacks but if the intel fails and there is an attack, then we make it clear that we will not rest until we find those responsible and make them pay. this is obama's point when he says that this battle has shifted from afghan/osama to iraq and that was a mistake. i agree with him.

[tonorator]

Either way we look defeated

 

i don't get this whole "look" thing. i'm not picking on you whomp, but i hear this and it's frustrating. you mean to tell me that we are only putting our sons and daughters in harms way and spending billions of dollars to protect our image? what is that?

[Big John]

Because you have the same hair?

Savage is balding

[Ursa Majoris]

I am heartily sick of this f'n fear mongering.

 

In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP

 

Fact: We already spend more on "defense" than the entire rest of the world combined, including China. Rebuild? Re f'n build? Are you nuts? We already can utterly destroy the planet many times over, yet we have another $20 billion in the latest budget for more nukes. How are we supposed to point the accusing finger at the likes of Iran and N Korea when we ourselves are proliferating nukes like there's a friggin' sale going on? How about diverting that $20 billion into intelligence and special forces - THAT is what will destroy active terrorists, not tanks, artillery and nukes.

 

The Chinese will not need a military conquest. Before long, they will be able to strangle us economically and we are actively helping them by continuing to throw massive amounts of money down the pit known as the Pentagon and actively piling up debt.

 

Madness.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Ursa Majoris

[Yukon Cornelius]

When I'm hunkered down in North Dakota with the rest of the surviving God fearing white folks, don't knock on the compound door and expect to get let in.

we would shoot u on site as u would bring no value to the new world order

[Randall]

I heard John Stewart commented on his show last night about Romney's talk of letting the terrorists win if a Democrat is elected.

 

His response sums up my feeling pretty well:

 

fub[ck you

 

 

 

And if Obama wants to play that same game he can say they are aiding the terrorists because we didn't finish the job in Afghaniastan.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Randall

[Savage Beatings]

Savage is balding

 

You are too kind.

[TimC]

If God wanted the world to end, He wouldn't have let New Kids on the Block reunite.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I am heartily sick of this f'n fear mongering.

Fact: We already spend more on "defense" than the entire rest of the world combined, including China. Rebuild? Re f'n build? Are you nuts? We already can utterly destroy the planet many times over, yet we have another $20 billion in the latest budget for more nukes. How are we supposed to point the accusing finger at the likes of Iran and N Korea when we ourselves are proliferating nukes like there's a friggin' sale going on? How about diverting that $20 billion into intelligence and special forces - THAT is what will destroy active terrorists, not tanks, artillery and nukes.

 

The Chinese will not need a military conquest. Before long, they will be able to strangle us economically and we are actively helping them by continuing to throw massive amounts of money down the pit known as the Pentagon and actively piling up debt.

 

Madness.

 

Good points. China could do what we did to USSR and we should not bite. They could take their new found economic power and engage us in an arms race to the point of totally bankrupting us.

 

And Az...this is what I've been trying to tell you about McCain. The guy is a warmonger. His heart may be in the right place, but there is enough rhetoric from the other side to push us to the edge of war. We don't need it coming from our side as well. We don't need to engage in a war with Iran. And we have plenty of resources to target the true threats of terror. Take out those camps in NW Pakistan with extreme prejudice. That would be a good start.

[tonorator]

And Az...this is what I've been trying to tell you about McCain. The guy is a warmonger. His heart may be in the right place, but there is enough rhetoric from the other side to push us to the edge of war. We don't need it coming from our side as well. We don't need to engage in a war with Iran. And we have plenty of resources to target the true threats of terror. Take out those camps in NW Pakistan with extreme prejudice. That would be a good start.

 

agree. i don't see how anyone can support mccain because of this single issue. everything else pales in comparison. whoever the dem candidate is, they should just shred him on this. there is a reason (well, many) that bush has some of the lowest approval ratings of all time.