tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post115880791754374677..comments2023-10-21T20:04:18.267-04:00Comments on TwoConservatives: "This is absurd"Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04551264439871137611noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-1158824562178461112006-09-21T03:42:00.000-04:002006-09-21T03:42:00.000-04:00brimur. In his interview, he didn't say a "strong...brimur. In his interview, he didn't say a "strong national defense", he said "reorient our national defense", which I presume was about Iraq and getting our troops out, not about how to fight terrorism, or homeland security.<BR/><BR/>Then on his web page, he says "Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened."<BR/><BR/>Again, "refocusing foreign and defense policies". WIth the goal to "protect our national interests" and "seeks harmony"<BR/><BR/>That's not talk about anti-terrorism, it's a talk about using our military only where our national interest is threatened, and otherwise trying to get along with people. We've been having tha conversation for a long time, long before 9/11, and it's a good discussion, but it isn't about fighting terrorism. It sounds more like Pat Buchanon's America First plan. <BR/><BR/>But I don't doubt that somewhere in the guts of talking about "refocusing foreign and defence POLICIES", there might be something related to terrorism -- but it certainly isn't shown as a priority in THAT theme. <BR/><BR/>Actually, it's worse than I said. Go to Webb's senate campaign web page. After the 4 themes, he has a list of 6 issues, and here they are:<BR/>Iraq <BR/>Economic & Social Fairness <BR/>Education <BR/>Health Care <BR/>Infrastructure <BR/>Immigration <BR/>What's the greatest challenge today facing America? <BR/><BR/>Where is TERRORISM? Is it under Iraq? Health Care? Immigration? <BR/><BR/>Go look, it's like playing "Where's Waldo".<BR/><BR/>A hint: It isn't under "greatest challenge" -- that says we are facing MANY challenges, without actually telling us what they are or how his plan to fix any of them.<BR/><BR/>Oh, don't look for plans under any of the others either.<BR/><BR/>I searched for the characters "terror" in his entire issues section. THere are THREE references:<BR/><BR/>1) Terrorism and Iraq were separate issues, until George Bush incorrectly and unwisely linked them<BR/><BR/>2) . First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism.<BR/><BR/>3) This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. <BR/><BR/>That's it. Not one word about FIGHTING terrorism, "protect" is only there once, and its "protect our values".<BR/><BR/>security is there 5 times, not ONCE in regard to dealing with our security:<BR/>1,2) the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must...<BR/>3) speech on national security<BR/>4) National security policy under the Bush-Cheney Administration<BR/>5) , and homeland security is being neglected<BR/>6)Iraq is in a crisis that we must address now in order to make progress on all other security matters.<BR/><BR/>In other words, there is nothing in his entire issues section about how to protect our country against terrorist attack in a post 9/11 world. <BR/><BR/>BTW, 9/11 isn't in their, neither is "attack". Oh, and defend isn't either.<BR/><BR/>My point is that he had 3 major issues, and terrorism wasn't one, but attacking the administration efforts to protect us was.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04551264439871137611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-1158813925845237042006-09-21T00:45:00.000-04:002006-09-21T00:45:00.000-04:00You miss the point entirely brimur. Webb has been...You miss the point entirely brimur. Webb has been incredibly inconsistent in his message recently, which is what Charles is trying to get at. <BR/><BR/>I would suggest that (1) you work on your grammer before hitting submit. What does "sounds national security policy" mean? Oh, wait, you meant sound national security policy? I guess I figured you would take a second to look at your response before posting. And (2) if you really believe that the Republicans have failed, best get out to the voting booth come Election Day, because I read a Salon article earlier today that suggested that a Democratic takeover of the House stands, at best, a 50/50 shot of happening, and may be as low as 15%. This, and the fact that Webb has peaked, failing to get his name out there following the so-called "scandal" that recently followed Senator Allen, means that 2006 might not be the revolution that all you Democrats are hoping for.CR UVahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00087674006986070021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-1158812016276349172006-09-21T00:13:00.000-04:002006-09-21T00:13:00.000-04:00You're absurd. The terrorism point is included und...You're absurd. The terrorism point is included under national defense. Umm, please say you knew that, or I'll be even more concerned about Republicans ability to do more than parrot poll-tested talking points than I already am.<BR/><BR/>I'm really tired of Republicans sacrificing sounds national security policy for political crap like this. <BR/><BR/>Your party has failed, time for new leadership, try again in two years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com