AAARGH!!

Don't talk at me with "weak" or "strong" on national security.

I want SMART on national security. 

Yeah, and I want my own private island...  We're talking politicians, here.  Don't confuse the issue with fantasy.

On a kind-of-related topic:

Eff Feinstein.

EFF Schumer.

Please, if they're YOUR bums, toss them out.  They obviously don't have your best interest - or that of the country - at heart.

it was condi rice who told bob kerrey of the 9-11 commission that it would not have been a good idea "to respond to the cole" bombing.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

It's weird, MMFA is equating trust with strength. The argument Republicans have made (to some success) for years is not simply that Democrats cannot be trusted. It's that they are weak in the sense of not being strong, of not being mighty, and of being unwilling to express the might they do have. The thing about trust is that--with seven years of the near constant and foolish expression of might--the American people have begun to question the wisdom of the aggression that so often accompanies physical strength, so they've begun to be more skeptical of those they view as strong.

Arguable. We can discuss the merits of STRONG on national defense as opposed to SMART on defense but I just dont see people trusting anyone they thought WEAK on national defense. So I am comfortable on the fact that those polled saying they trust dems on national defense do not see them as weak. Not as aggressive maybe but you know well that isnt the same thing.

Pete hit the nail on the head.  We need smart leadership.  No one is listening to Condi, she's a joke in the international community.  Last week on the BBC they reported that our threat of economic sanctions against Burma were sneered at.  They said the United States doesn't have anything they want.  They can get that elsewhere.  Since we began outsourcing our manufacturing and have gone into global debt, we no longer carry any weight to go with our words, just military striking power.  In that sense this administration has greatly weakened the US. 

"If the Democrats in the Senate want to ban the procedure by which we got vital information out of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed..."opines Terry Jeffrey.

 That's really not the question.  The question is whether this is already illegal.  And there's a lot of reason to think that it is.  "The procedure" has always been considered torture and is outlawed by treaties which the US is signatory to.  Committing torture is a war crime.  

If Terry Jeffrey thinks that the United States should legalize torture, then somebody should introduce the required legislation to Congress.  Absent that, the Executive Branch should either obey the law or face the consequences.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I hope, I pray the Republicans make their National Security record the issue in '08!

I was worried they would change the subject and afford themselves some glimmer of hope!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

If the guys who do the waterboarding want to be immune to prosecution for their actions, fine, do it.  But there is no immunity for hell.  If you waterboard, you are going to hell.  Strange tradeoff.

"If you waterboard, you are going to hell.  Strange tradeoff."

Funny how the people who claim to believe in places like Hell are also the ones most likely to condemn themselves to it. 

     I guess it's time to define where we stand as a society. I suggest what Terry Jeffries is really saying is "we as Americans are not brave enough to stand on our principles. We would gladly and proudly torture anyone we suspect of being a terrorist." But let's not stop at waterboarding let's put burning bamboo shoots under people's fingernails pins in their eyes. Bring back the iron maiden. Just because there's no blood does not mean there's no pain, and it's only simulated drowning. If you know it's simulated.

     Imagine that your aunt or your mother was visiting the Taj Mahal and the Indian government thought she was a spy or a terrorist. In a country with a lot of poor people, and a bounty for everyone turned in as a terrorist. It's easy to believe that charges could easily be trumped up. I am sure that you would gladly subject your mother, aunt and/or brother or son for the Indian peoples peace of mind. But then again, you really wouldn't know would you, because they would have just disappeared off of the street. Would you prefer due process be in place? Or would you prefer that they use the secret methods of interrogation preferred in Guantánamo and clandestine rendition prisons around the world. Is it so easy for you to forget that these are suspects. With so little evidence against them that our Justice Department refuses to even bring them into the country.

Save your energy. It seems to me the founders already defined where we stand.

Between the Iraq war; the recent failures of our "critical ally" (sarcasm), the utterly ineffectual Pervez Musharrif; the inability to bring the 9/11 planners to justice; and the watering down of our victory in Afganistan by the resurgance of the Taliban; the Republicas have lost all credability on defense and terrorism. 

Remember when they spent the first 2-3 years trying to convince us (against our common sense) that the Iraq War was crucial to the war on terror?  Then in 2006, with the war going as it did, they tried to SEPERATE it from the War on Terror, so as they could still claim competance, despite their obvious lack of judgement? 

Couple with with losing credability on...:

1) Spending (which, let's face it, is intertwined with TAXES.)

2) "Values" (Foley, Craig, etc...)

3) Limited Federal Power (that only lasted until they took control of the federal gov't)

... And what exactly do they have left?  (Aside from bending over and biting the pillow for the sake of industry and big business?)

The republican party stands for NOTHING anymore.  They have no pride, no soul and no brains.  Hopefully soon, as retribution for their shameless selling-out, they will have no power. 

(Now how do fix the damage these idiots did to the supreme court...?  Maybe Ann Coulter's idea: some anthrax in the creme brulee?)

Democrats are weak on national security, but Dubbya wanted to sell our ports to the United Arab Emirates.  Right.

Are we on the same planet?