“Wimpiness” Vs “Machismo” In 2004
“Wimpiness” Vs “Machismo” In 2004: Is it just me or are the Democrats really coming off as an even bigger group of weenies than usual lately? On Sunday, we had the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller who voted for the war responding the question “in your view, in hindsight, was the war justified” with…
“Was it justified? I think that’s hard to say at this point.”
Boy, that’s the sort of manly decisiveness people look for in a leader isn’t it?
Then we have Charles Rangel whining because we killed Uday and Qusay Hussein…
We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody,” Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., told Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”
“We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it,” Rangel contended. “And when you personalize the war and you say you’re killing someone’s kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody.”
Sure, they may be murderous, psychopathic, rapists who’re probably leading resistance against us, but maybe we shouldn’t have killed them because it might make somebody mad.
Then we go to the man with the momentum, Howard Dean. Here’s one of things he said in reaction to the deaths of these diehard enemies of our country…
“I think in general the ends do not justify the means.”
That fills you with confidence doesn’t it? Maybe we should have only allowed our troops to use stun guns and rubber bullets in the firefight so as not to upset Howard Dean’s delicate sensibilities.
Then there are my favorite comments from a Dem recently…
“Foreign policy isn’t a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones and then everything fades to black,” Gephardt told a crowd of 300 at a meeting of the Bar Association of San Francisco. “No matter the surge of momentary machismo — as gratifying as it may be for some — it is shortsighted and wrong to simply go it alone.”
“President Bush may have won the support of a lot of Democrats — including me — for his war effort there, but in his dissembling and mishandling, he’s steadily losing every ounce of bipartisan support he once had,” said Gephardt.”
First off, unless you’re wearing a dress you should be embarrassed to complain about “machismo” — especially during a war on terrorism. Moreover, Gephardt sounds like a Frenchman complaining about John Wayne movies.
What people like Gephardt, Dean & company seem incapable of understanding is that we don’t want to make the terrorists and their allies love us, we want to kill them. Furthermore, it’s to America’s advantage to have what Lee from Right-Thinking From The Left Coast calls a “gun-toting batsh*t-crazy Texan” in the White House who says things like “bring them on” & talks about wanting Osama “dead or alive”. Terrorists and the pro-terrorist Islamo-fascists in the Middle-East need to be convinced that we’re willing, capable, willing — did I mention willing — to inflict staggering damage on them at the drop of a ten gallon hat. Generating that sort of fear among your enemies in the war on terrorism is worth infinitely more than fancy speeches, international aid, & trying to understand why they hate us. The Democrats running for President (other than Lieberman) don’t seem to get that and that fact alone makes them unfit for the Presidency in a time of war.