(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Thursday, March 02, 2006

The Dems are The Real Hawks

It makes me nasueous when a democrat pretends to be concerned about our troops equipment and ability to fight.
Today the HuffPo featured a blog posting from Jim Derych, titled "Rush and The Role Of The Military". You see, the left is obsessed with Rush. They think that when he speaks, the Administration jumps. Its really Rush and Rove who have been outsmarting the left at every turn, not Bush. Derych writes in his article that Rush said, "“The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.”, which is a pretty accurate assessment by Rush. Then Derych goes on to say:

"Rush’s definition also helps explain the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ when it comes to our attitudes about military spending. Dittoheads want more, better, faster, and more efficient methods for killing people and breaking things. Bunker-buster nukes, Crusader artillery, AC-130 gunships and the like get their nipples all hard."

Thats right...its called 'technology', you luddite. Its what makes us the most powerful nation on Earth. It doesnt necessarily get our nipples hard, but it does help us sleep a little more soundly at night. I'm sorry you cant appreciate that.

Then the luddite tosses out this asinine gem:
"But when we try to say maybe we could give our troops the up-armored Hummers they need, they bristle. “Armor? Hell, you can’t kill anyone with armor!”"

My understanding is that this is a non-issue with the troops and it has been addressed. As for the quote, I guarantee nobody said any such thing. Provide the quote and context and I will eat my shorts, liar-man.

Of course, its to be expected that some pantywaist like Derych thinks that demanding better armor makes him a hawk. The fact of the matter is, your family can sleep a lot safer at night with Republicans at the helm. The Democrats tried their best to dismantle the military and channel these funds to various welfare causes.
During the Clinton Administration:

The armed forces' active personnel decreased by 40 percent.

• The 10 Army combat divisions did not have a full complement of officers, tankers and gunners.

• The Air Force lacked 700 pilots to man its planes.

• With the exception of the Marine Corps, every branch of the armed forces was struggling to find new recruits.

Go ahead and pretend, liberals. We know where you really stand when it comes to the miltary and the defense of our nation.


Blogger joe said...

LOL this is hilarious, thanks for posting your blog.

I love that you denigrate Jim Derych as a luddite and completely miss that Clinton's aim in reducing the military in active soldiers was in response to better technology, a vision of a smaller more technologically oriented military.

That's right, he was replacing men with machines, exactly what the luddites were against, who's the luddite now?

I dont know about who is left or right, i dont think anyone with any sense believes Rush is a problem, except that he is infuriatingly dishonest and his fans are rabid partisans.

I personally think we should be spending more on keeping the soldiers we've got, and using them as something other than cannon fodder, but that's not the way this administration works.

7:44 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

I dont see how anybody can think the Clintons have respect for the military. Hillary didnt even want Marines to wear uniforms in the White House. She had them serving tea at social events. She and Bill were very anti-military in their college days and that never changed.

8:14 PM  
Anonymous pekka said...

I am confused here, so help me, please! Didn't the family Clinton enthusiasticly support the Iraq invation?

9:34 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

No, they didnt, pekka. Hillary has been supportive of the Iraq invasion only because she is going to run for president and she needs to move more towards the center to fool people. This one is backfiring on though. She is losing the support of the radical left.
And while she is badmouthing the Dubai Port deal, Bill Clinton is working FOR the Saudi's to facilitate the deal. Its great stuff! Only in America!

10:10 PM  
Blogger joe said...

I dont see how this has anything to do with the Clintons, but whatever President Clinton did was 6 years ago, and there were a lot of immeadiate sign ups after 9/11, so troop strength isnt much of a problem, and as for serving tea, I hope I dont have to be the one to point out that serving tea is hardly as onerous as say taking a round from an ak-47

11:31 PM  
Blogger joe said...

Okay, so who was it that mentioned the clintons have respect for the military? I just pointed out the fallacy of your luddite smear.

Where did you get the mind reader that tells you Hillary's intentions? I could really use one of those. It'd make weeding out the scum that much easier.

As for the Ports deal and the Clintons, why is it bad for Clinton to givce advice to the Emerites and its okay for Bush to work with them? isnt that a rather obvious double standard? Just becuase Bill and Hillary are on different sides on this issue doesnt make a bit of difference. Have you never disagreed with your wife? Why are we talking about the Clinton's? they arent in power. Their influence isnt that great, Jimmy Carter has more influence and he's been out of office for a lot longer.

11:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home