The Public Opinion Soapbox

QueenofHearts · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 379 Location: On the Computer

From the Cagle Post, by Michael Reagan

Memo to Reid, Pelosi & Co.

Making Sense,

What happened in Pakistan today is just more proof that when it comes to the war on terrorism, the Democrats are so terribly wrong-headed that they constitute a serious threat to the security of the American people -- that’s you and me.

The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is just another message -- if any more are needed -- that we are involved in a global war with an enemy that has no morals, no scruples and no respect for human life.

We can expect that the message will go undelivered to the national leadership of the Democratic party, which has shown a reckless disregard to any hints that hard-headed U.S. policy vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism is right and is justified.

In stubborn resistance to reality, Congressional Democrats have steadfastly clung to the notion that the Bush administration is wrong in its determination to face the war being forced on us by worldwide Islamo-fascism and expend its energies in fighting it wherever is with all that is required.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have turned a blind eye to the true nature of the war, especially
in their insistence that the war in Iraq is not part of the total war and wants us out, pronto, leaving Iraq to deal with a threat it is not yet able to deal with.

Their myopia over Iraq and the need to pursue an aggressive strategy to root out and destroy the enemy wherever he is, as we are now doing with the surge in Iraq, is not limited to that struggle. It seems that whenever tough measures are called for, they rise up in strident opposition.

Such is the case in Pakistan, where Nancy Pelosi not long ago expressed her disapproval of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s hard-line stance towards the huge radical element in his country, where polls show that fully 48 percent of the population favors al Qaeda and the Taliban.

When Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended his nation’s constitution in the face of massive unrest in Pakistan, Pelosi -- who seems to labor under the misapprehension that among her roles is secretary of state for Capitol Hill -- let loose with this broadside, pinning the blame on the Bush Administration, which she neglected to note shared her unhappiness with Musharraf’s actions, but not her stridency:

"For too long, President Musharraf failed to confront effectively his growing unpopularity” Madame Pelosi said. “The Bush Administration enabled Musharraf's delusion by ignoring his undemocratic acts and lack of internal support in exchange for his assistance in efforts against terrorism. Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people," Pelosi added.

This in the face of that near-majority of the population that sees its government as the real enemy and supports al Qaeda, which wants to kill us all and has tried nine times to kill Pervez Musharraf, who just happens to be our sole hope of keeping order in a nuclear-armed Pakistan and preventing the horrendous Taliban from re-conquering Afghanistan.

War, as the Kennedys used to say about politics, “ain’t beanbag.” Victory does not go to the fainthearted. And like it or not, what we face in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq, and in a lot of other troubled areas of the world, is all-out war. Musharraf understands that.

Wherever we are engaged in that war the Democratic party, now thoroughly in the hands of the greatest conglomeration of fanatic far-out left-wingers in all
creation, prefers to treat the struggle as if it were beanbag, where one plays by gentlemanly rules even as the enemy kills people in suicide bombings or chopping off heads.

Pakistan is not an isolated case. We are as much at war there, by proxy, as we are in Afghanistan where our troops battle the Taliban. If we lose Pakistan, al Qaeda could be the world’s ninth nuclear power, and playing the Democrats’ game of beanbag could threaten us with mushroom clouds over Manhattan.

As the Nixon folks used to say, when the going gets tough, the tough get going -- if they want to survive, that is. For today’s Democrats, when the going gets tough, it’s time to wring your hands and tsk-tsk while the tough get going.

http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?sid=f11b2df8-81e3-4e79-aac5-caad6d236e66&pg=1

The tough really need to get going now!
Comments anyone?
_________________
Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me, I want people to know 'why' I look this way.

I've traveled a long way and some of the roads weren't paved.

A Talking Horse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 143 Location: Cove Gap

Busharraf
_________________
Do everything that's in you, you feel to be your part...

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2617 Location: Chambersburg

I don't know, letters like this just turn into more finger-pointing. The Congressional Democrats and the Bush Administration are both doing an awful job at this point running this country, and a lot of that has to do with misplaced priorities on both sides. There's no compromise, I know, and there is quite a bit of squabbling.

However, we are far better of now than we were when Republicans controlled congress for the simple reason that now, at least there's a debate! As misguided and misplaced both sides seem to be on many issues, at least we're seeing vetoes and disagreements and discussions. I'd rather have things voted on several times and shot down and vetoes and voted on again rather than have the Congress simply pass a bill which the president will automatically sign.

As far as Mucharraf, again, I think we need to stop policing the world and Reagan's tough-talk rhetoric of "Islamo-fascism" and "total war" aren't fooling me anymore. I don't think anyone believes that Islmaic terrorism is "right and is justified" but I do agree that democratic leadership is going to appose almost any Bush administration strategy, perhaps in some cases foolishly.

Then again, many Democrats in congress were elected on a moderate platform and an opposition to the Bush administration. The early congress was criticized by their own party members for not standing up to Bush and leading our country in a new direction. We're still at a point where it's just whining and pointing fingers. But we can't move on from that unless both sides make an effort to compromise for the good of America, and letter like this, whether from a conservative or a liberal, aren't helping.

A Talking Horse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 143 Location: Cove Gap

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 564

umm. if i remember right bush and musharaff were buddy buddy. not bush and bhutto vs the dems.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 564

omg, i just read the whole thing, that guy thinks that musharraff was trying to protect bhutto from terrorists????????????????????

maybe he needs to read the news from pakistan for the past couple years.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 564

this would be like if tomorrow all of the glaciers melt, and al gore drowns in nyc. and then rush limbaugh says, see what happens you pansy libs? bush tries to save gore from the terrorists and pelosi wouldn't let him.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3068 Location: Chambersburg

I like the other Reagan son; he fact checks.

Musharraf hated Bhutto. She returned to the country with the help of U.S. officials to bring some stability and strength to the Pakistani government.
Musharraf was insulted by this saying that we (and the rest of the world) were just fooled by an attractive woman who spoke well. The extremist were pissed because, according to them, Musharraf was easily controlled and only made cosmetic changes, allowing them to still maintain their powers. Let's not forget that Bhutto was a woman...A woman! The nerve of her! Trying to hardline on them and telling Musharaff what to do!

Musharaf shut down the government, suspended the constitution and removed her from her position because she said he was corrupt. He then put her under house arrest for her "own good."

If the Taliban is responsible for her assassination, I'd be surprised if some of Musharraf's people were not involved.

I know Springhill disagrees with me, as, I'm sure, others do.
I'd love to have this discussion continue.
But to try and use her death to bolster political issues within the U.S. is a bit tacky.(Yes, I realize I brought Bush up in my earlier post about Bhutto...I'm a hypocrite. I just hate when we hand-pick someone to run a government within a culture we know nothing about...We always pick the wrong person!) Confused

Mr. Reagan should not only hire a fact checker, but he should have his ears boxed. (Anyone brave enough to try, is more than welcome to attempt to box my ears too!)
_________________
Nevermind.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2617 Location: Chambersburg

Michael Reagan isn't even really a Reagan; he's the adopted son of Ronald Reagan. Ron Reagan is basically ignored by everyone for being considered liberal, atheist and a harsh critic of President Bush. But he has also become a huge supporter of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research and, specifically, the promising effects such research could have on curing Alzheimer's Disease which ultimately took the life of his father.

I don't see Michael Reagan caring about that since it doesn't jibe well with his ultra-conservative views.

Curious · Joined: 14 Nov 2007 Posts: 35

What does his being adopted have to do with anything????

There is much promise in other forms of stem cell research which do not require the destruction of a life.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3068 Location: Chambersburg

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2617 Location: Chambersburg

I'm sorry, but real humans are more important to me than zygotes. If that's not your thing, that's fine. But I fully support and admire anyone who spends their time advocating the advancement of scientific research and development for helping people... and if that means using an unused embryo that would be thrown out anyway, then I'm sorry, my common sense overrules any sort of moral or ethical (or sadly, religious) trepidation I, or anyone else may have.

Curious · Joined: 14 Nov 2007 Posts: 35

I think you are wrong Chel. (I never heard that about menstrual blood,BTW.)
There is a lot of promise in many types of stem cells.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2617 Location: Chambersburg

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3068 Location: Chambersburg