Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Dems finally reveal security plans?

Yes, they do...well, sort of. From Breitbart/AP:
Eyeing House and Senate elections this fall, Democrats are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security.

Congressional Democrats vow to provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in a national security policy statement House and Senate Democratic leaders were announcing Wednesday.
Are Democrats implying that U.S. agents haven't been provided with the necessary resources to find OBL? If so, how come this is the first time in the nearly 5 years after the 9/11 attacks that we're hearing about this? Were concerns not voiced in that time frame?

Also, please allow me to offer a translation for you fine folks. I have become fluent at translating "Democrap" over the years, so here's a translation for you:

A "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 means "cut and run from Iraq." Pelosi, Murtha, and others have said as much. Hope that helps!

Anyway, what details do we get from the Democrats on how to find OBL or "responsibly deploy" Iraq troops?
The Democratic statement lacks specific details of a plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida chief who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
They say: "We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."
How so? Now that is just so unlike them to be vague and offer no specifics! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

I have maintained from the beginning that if the Dems will come out with a plan of their own, instead of reflexive bitching and obstruction, they might stand a chance of doing the unthinkable: actually winning an election! However, when I said that they should offer a plan, I actually meant that the plan should have specifics!

After all, John F'ing Kerry told us repeatedly in 2004 that he had a plan...and then he never told us what the plan was. I guess he was for a plan, before he was against it.