I've always wanted to go into a meeting with the big bosses at work and start off my report as, "Well Gentlemen, we're F....d"

If the democrats make any signficant gains in either of the next couple of elections, take a guess what my openning sentence is going to be in Wizbang's comment section.

Yes they are going to double the special forces.
And double the number of spies.
Next they will get pennies from heaven.

I have always believed, that the capture of terrorists within our own borders, the HALT of triple ninja assasins who target our nations leaders, and the coercian of enemies capable of doing my nation harm, is a GOOD idea. Should I run on the Democratic Ticket? or should I come up with a REAL EFFING PLAN!!!

DUH! DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH, the Dems are running on DUH! 12th graders are saying "DUH" but what is your plan, and the dems are just giving them "DUH!"

as an atheist for me to say the next, is an expression of how STUPID one must be. . . . . "FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST!!!! DO YOU DEMOCRATS HAVE A THOUGHT! let alone a PLAN!?!?!?!

DUH DUH DUH, if you count on DUH for your electorate? you will either lose horribly, or you will prove that America DESERVES defeat, YOU!!!! You, Democrats, you are siding with ignorance, and stupidity, rather than effort and accomplishment, you are HOPING that we, the US, the greatest nation that has ever been built and graced the face of this nation will lose, you WANT us to be DUH!'s in our thinking? IS THAT your PLAN!??!?!?!?!?!?

You WILL lose, and if you don't? GOD HELP AMERICA! Not because Dem's run congress, but because you GAINED congress based on the philosophy of DUH! You CAPITALIZE on ignorance, YOU are the King Georges, YOU were ONCE a party FOR America, but now you PROVE that you are against it. If you win, if REID is the "leader" You have failed not just the congress, but the nation, you have started us towards a NEW revolution.

DUH! Pelosi, you got your "Majority" status, DUH DURBIN! you can call our trooms nazi's from the top of their legislative branch, DUH! You presidential wannabe's, you have DESTROYED! the value of the thing you worked so hard to rule.

You don't wanna be leaders, you wanna be DICTATORS exclusive in your governance, if you say otherwise, then speak truth WITH power, not just against it. Or are you all cowards.

I've heard reference to BDS, but these posts are verging on DDS. If the policy is sound (though never completely popular), too much spinning looks desperate, and micro-management will find one tripping over one's own feet while dancing to please the hypothetical "public". All the kvetching over Madeleine Albright beating Boy George in a peter-pulling contest should focus the Bushbots' minds on how they've come to such dire straits that they should care. Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead! If that charge should give you pause, the fault is not without, but within.

Oh good, the Democrats are going to add more spies. Well, that's a nice change in policy as they were busy slashing intelligence budgets pre-9/11. Yet, it just kinda sounds like they still have no clue, as it they think we can just call up Lockheed or Boeing and have them whip-up a hundred or so Stealthy Personnel Impersonating Espionage Surveillance droids.

Hmmm.

For goodness sake. You can't just double the special forces as if you were ordering take out chinese. There's a reason why the special forces, and special operations troops in general, are currently understaffed. Because the requirements are high enough that only a relatively few can make the grade. Even then it can take years of hard training to make a veteran special forces soldier.

And you can't just double the number of spies either. It takes even more ability to be an actual spy, vs a courier or analyst, than it does to be in the special forces. And the recruiting, training and development of a spy can take decades.

Is there anyone with an actual appreciation for reality in the Democratic party?

Waitaminnit.

What's the problem with increasing the number of special forces or spies? Is your problem the fact that we can't do it instantly? If so, then we can't ever *start* training the new forces, because we want them RIGHT NOW!

Regardless of what you think of the rest of the package, I don't see that beginning the process of increasing those assets as being a bad thing.

What do they think they can accomlish that Bush's steely resolve and Republican competence can't?

Oh, wait, hold on a sec ...

General Wesley Clark? I thought it was Weasley Clark. Thanks for the clarification. Four of the dimmest bulbs on the string and they are going to win the war on terror for us? God help us all!
It would take all four of them to carry Bush's jock.
Chuck

In other news: 'Pigs Fly'

" General Clark simply isn't convincing as a credible national security expert.'

Your pentagonal attack on the messengers fails
the smell test and collapses with a thud when
you stutter an undefined objection to Clark.

Can you really defend the abysmal record of
this WH and their 'Apple Dumpling Gang' approach
to the WoT by heckling the opposition?

Gain some credibility by honestly appraising
the performance of these ham-handed
microencephalists.

There's no need to heckle the Democrats, just feed them back their own talking points such as "what's your timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq?" Just changing the number of boots on the ground is no plan. Democrats, where's your plan?

Regardless of the level of detail the Democrats come up with, as unlikely as that is, just keep repeating the mantra "Democrats have no plan." Let them face into their own B.S. for a while.

Ed,
I beg to differ, Nancy and Harry's plan to increase Special Forces and Spies can be accomplished instantly.
Special Forces - Just change the color of the berets and viola, Special Forces! You don't really believe that they care wether or not the new ones are qualified do you?
Spies - This is a really easy one. Valerie Plame has at least a dozen friends at Langley, boom instant NOC's.Send them to the Middle East and nary a soul will spot their lily white skin.
You see you just have to realise that when Nancy and Harry say that they have a plan it is more than just empty words.

We're arguing over this as if the dems are being honest and really intend to try to do these things. If they were serious, they'd be proposing legislation NOW to increase the budget for the special forces and CIA.

All they are doing is responding to the critics who tell them that they look weak on national security. They think that by naming some "specifics" they will gain credibility with the ignorant public who don't realize how hard it is to find men and women who are capable of cutting the mustard in the special forces and covert ops.

Style over substance.

If only the evil George Bush hadn't vetoed all that bold Congressional budgeting for more spies and special forces we'd be stoning bin laden in Times Square right now. Good thing we're going to get a bold new plan to 'have more spies' and 'have more special forces' to go ahead and do what Bush has been ignoring and 'eliminate' bin laden...ah, heady days in Demo-dom. I guess I might have to vote for them and their bold new plans...

I mean, c'mon, couple this with the fact that Dean is telling us we'll suddenly be energy independent if more Dems are elected (without drilling more for gas and oil)...conservative or liberal, you gotta vote for them if they can make all that happen. I mean, really, you whip up some spies who find bin laden then send out your new special forces to 'eliminate' him, then pull all of our troops out of Iraq and hope for the best there, then I guess you go ahead and pull our forces out of S. Korea, Germany, etc. because, really, 3 years in Iraq is just unacceptable, let alone 50+ years in places like Germany, and put all those folks to work on new levees in New Orleans (because, after all, our recession-bound economy has been so utterly destroyed by Bush that there are no jobs in the private world for them), after doing all that it's only a short hop, skip, and a jump to stitching up that Social Security system that just needs a little TLC (unlike when it was a crisis when Billy was in office, guess George fixed it up a little or something, or maybe Billy fixed it when we weren't looking in between issuing all those pardons to former associates in his last couple of hours and implementing new logging rules that, oddly, weren't important for the first 8 years or so of his term but somehow became crucial environmental protections that he provided that Bush did away with), taking care of that pesky poverty that only goes up when a Republican is in the White House, and 'double, triple, or fourple' the size of the Dept. of Education since that seems to be all that's standing in the way of our inner city youths' academic success, make it a crime to make profits, because, well, it's just not fair, implement some good solid policies to make it a crime to fire anyone like in France (stuff like that really fires up the young voters, it seems), shut down our power generating facilities, except for hydro (but not where there are fish or crabs or nesting birds or where any dams are needed), solar (once Gore and a few of his buddies make it economical, which they would've done if he'd been elected), and wind (except not where Ted Kennedy or New York vacation home owners might have to see the windmills and only if they don't kill any birds) so that global warming stops (oops, also need to outlaw private transportation by petro powered vehicles, don't forget that), conveniently leading to the closing of those Bush administration death camps known as 'coal mines'...

I'd vote for them if they could do that, wouldn't you?

By the way ,its not Wesley Clark its Ashley Wilkes .. and what an incredible Joke. semanticleo , this w.houses abyssmal record ? What are your buddies Harry and Nancy going to do ? order at least 1 attack a year so they can stop it and make it look like they care..there have been no attacks You irrelevant Moron.

I see Daschle's name isn't on that. After the 'You don't professionalize until you Federalize' speech of his, and the abysmal performance of Homeland Security letting through radioactive materials, I'm REALLY sure that NOW they'll be able to get it right.

Yeah. Sure.

I'm supposed to trust Democrats who have consistently shown they're out of relevant ideas, actively fighting damn near anything proposed by Republicans as far as the economy and the WoT goes, and willing to cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan if they think it'd get them a few votes?

I'll look at what they've got - but they have to have something BETTER than what's going on now, they have to have WORKABLE ideas instead of half-baked, half-formed concepts that have the block "Then A Miracle Occurs" right before their expected results in their flowchart.

J.

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osama and his cronies are intimidated by the current bunch ! Hey Lex , he,s hiding instead of walking around out in the open like he did during the Clinton administration looking for volunteers ,raising funding, helping Sandy Burglar shred any link to 911 that the last bunch caused or and had .. that is if he,s still alive.

The Democrats have been playing the game of "there is no national security problem" -- wiretapping of overseas conseversations, war in Iraq, etc. -- for months now. Now they want us to believe that we really do have a problem that they're the ones to fix it?

Stingray: a blog for salty Christians

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osama and his cronies are intimidated by the current bunch ! Hey Lex , he,s hiding instead of walking around out in the open like he did during the Clinton administration looking for volunteers ,raising funding, helping Sandy Burglar shred any link to 911 that the last bunch caused or and had .. that is if he,s still alive.

The original version of the plan called for hiring "super l33t ninjas" that could "breath fire" and "shoot bullets from their eyes"... but apparently the focus groups snickered at that version so they chose to re-word it.

- MikeB

"Democrats, where's your plan?"

Shorter version of;

Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are
you going to do about the damage?

Bill Clinton & Al Gore to Democrats:

"Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are
you going to do about the damage?"

Got it: Republican good, Democrat bad. Don't even have to think anymore; just have to know which party they're in, by golly.

How can a liberal pacifist dickhead like General Wesley Clark claim to know more about defense than a real, self-sacrificial, battle-scarred heroine like Kim Priestap?

What branch of the service did you serve in, by the way?

P.S. Keep it simple, Kimmy. It worked for Goebbels.

Bush could have fought a war on terror,
But focused on Iraq instead.
Since this invasion was an error,
Too many people now are dead.

And as for Rummy, and for Cheney,
They think they're fighting the Cold War.
They babble lots of miscellany
But don't know what they're fighting for.

The Democrats, like Reid, Obama
Pelosi, Reed, have flaws, no doubt,
But still, they want to catch Osama,
Who Bush is not concerned about.

Who tried to make our ports secure?
The Democrats. Who shot it down?
Republicans. What is the cure?
More Democrats in D.C. town.

The Dems have signed up actual thinkers
To think up terror-fighting tricks;
Repubs are merely lazy stinkers,
Still stuck in nineteen-eighty-six.

To occupy Iraq forever
Appears to be the Bushies' plan;
The plan, I think, is not too clever --
And they may lose Afghanistan.

To praise the Dems with strength and surity
May make the righties scream and curse,
But when it comes to our security,
One thing I know: Repubs are worse.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Osama bin Laden is intimidated by the *current* bunch?

Old Democrat Party Security Strategy: Block. Thwart. Obstruct.

New Democrat Party Security Strategy: Block. Thwart. Obstruct. "Re-word" policy that's already in place. Claim it to be yours.

They...still...don't...get...it.

Rep. Harry Reid

Harry Reid is a Senator.

These folks can show up to a press conference and say they're going to be tough on national security, but it won't change the fact that they fought President Bush on virtually every national security issue that came before them in the House.

That is interesting, considering only one of them is a member of the House.

Pelosi also worked against our military's recruiting efforts.

Your link on this does not work.

Madeleine Albright's presence will add nothing to this affair. Her moral relativist view of foreign policy and national security should frighten all Americans.

Did you actually read Albright's op-ed? It wasn't about moral relativism at all. It was about recognizing the fact that not all of our enemies are the same or work for the same team, and that sometimes you end up helping one enemy when you hurt another (and sometimes you can hurt one enemy by helping another). This logic shouldn't be new to Republicans; it's the same logic they use to justify our assistance to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and our assistance to Bin Laden during the Russian war in Afghanistan. What Albright advocates is actually much less frightening than either of those actions, which were undertaken by Republican administrations.

And General Clark simply isn't convincing as a credible national security expert.

Why not?

Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are you going to do about the damage?

The democrats give ad and comfort to the enemy by their incessant and often dishonest opposition and some still think they're blameless. Now they want to show they're qualified to lead, but they can't answered their own criticism when it's fed back in their face. Where's their timetable for withdraw? What's their plan? They have no plan. They have no plan. They have no plan.

I almost feel sorry for any democrat that might find themselves living in the White House in 2009. It'll be time to put-up or shut-up and whatever they do republicans can just replay the democrat's talking points. It's just so much easier to criticize than to perform.

Hmmm.

What's the problem with increasing the number of special forces or spies? Is your problem the fact that we can't do it instantly? If so, then we can't ever *start* training the new forces, because we want them RIGHT NOW!

It isn't a case of beginning training. The problem, as I outlined in my comment, is that the standards are extremely high. Only a relatively few number of soldiers meet those requirements.

As it is the total number of special forces/operations soldiers has been increased to the maximum possible by keeping the standards but relaxing the training process. Previous to 9/11 it was standard practice for special forces units to set the maximum number of successful candidates and then hammer the hopeful applicants until enough either washed out or gave up. They changed that so there isn't a pre-set maximum allowed any longer, but the training requirements haven't been reduced so the training is still extremely difficult and so many still wash out or give up.

And yet that maximum is really just wishful thinking because that maximum will likely never be met simply because the requirements are so tough. You can't simply shove a regular soldier through a training process and then automatically get a special forces soldier. It simply doesn't work that way.

Because of the enormously difficult and stressful jobs special forces soldiers do they must be extremely hardy, tough, strong with enormous endurance and, most of all, an unwillingness to quit. Additionally any such team will operate in the harshest environments imaginable with no support so these teams must be able to rely on the abilities of each member. You can't throw in just any old warm body into one of these teams and expect either the same level of performance or even survival.

Frankly the simplest analogy I can think of, and take note that most analogies suck, is that of a fisherman. A fisherman can declare that he will catch 50 fish today, but that doesn't mean that either he will catch that many or that there are 50 fish for him to catch. A declaration of intent without the ability to follow through is simply useless.

And that is this nonsense about doubling the special forces.

Osama Bin Liquidated... you won't see him anymore. Too bad it'll dash the Dems "Big Plans."
The Dems have been running from the WOT for 4+ years, now all of a sudden they're going to give us a virtual plan to win it? Hmmmm, must be an election year - ya think? Too bad they don't realize mid-term elections are won locally, not globally or nationally. They'll never "get it." (Thank God.)

Those who think of Wesley Clark as a brilliant military strategist, might want to ask some people who were in the military with him in Europe about his reputation was among the military community. His judgement was rather poor in the Bosnian affair...

It wasn't good.

He was removed early from his command there because of his actions...

Among them -

While commanding NATO troops in defense of Muslim Kosovo and against Serbian Christians, for example, Clark commanded a subordinate British General to attack Russian troops that had landed without NATO permission at the airport in Kosovo's capital. The General Sir Mike Jackson refused Clark's risky orders, saying: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you!"

In the Balkans Clark also pursued policies that increased civilian casualties, such as deliberate bombing from high altitude and cutting off fuel, food and energy from the civilians of Belgrade in wintertime.

Robert Novak quoted one diplomat (speaking about Clark) as saying

"How could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be (Supreme Allied Commander of Europe)?"

" It's just so much easier to criticize than to perform."

Mayhaps the current occupants of the WH should
spend more time in criticism of the war critics
so their dismal performance is no longer the
subject.

Oh wait! You BushApologists are
mimicking that very strategy!