Posted on April 13, 2006


Donkey Kongs

Dems' chest-beating is all noise


Daniel Clark


In a belated attempt to convince America that they are strong on national defense, the Democrats have produced a mission statement that is so utterly irreconcilable with their true agenda that their voting base can't possibly support it, and the rest of the electorate can't possibly believe it. In what it calls "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect and Restore Our Leadership in the World," the party of Michael Moore has made its most phony appeal to patriotism since its 2004 convention.

cymbalism over substance

One might even question the sobriety of the document's authors, since it reads like the rhetorical equivalent of beer muscles. In their own minds, the Democrat donkeys have grown into the Donkey Kongs. After spending the last four and a half years as, at best, timid bystanders in the War on Terror, they now warn that our enemies had better get out of their way, or risk being crushed underfoot. Here are some of the more delusional excerpts.

"The first responsibility of our government is the security of every American."

If the Democrats believed this, they wouldn't be talking about censuring President Bush for spying on al-Qaeda contacts in America. Nor would Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid have bragged to an applauding crowd of party loyalists that, "we killed the Patriot Act." Thankfully for the rest of us, this celebration proved to be premature.

"The men and women of America's armed forces ... along with veterans, retirees and the families of those who have given their lives or have been wounded in defense of our country, deserve the gratitude and support of the American people."

If only they also had the gratitude and support of elected Democrats, who regularly accuse them of targeting civilians, torturing prisoners, and terrorizing women and children. To this day, Sen. John Kerry refuses to recant his 1971 testimony, during which he accused his fellow soldiers of practically every atrocity short of cannibalism. Remember, also, that it was the Democratic Party that tried to disqualify military absentee ballots in 2000. So much for gratitude and support.

"Democrats offer a plan for Real Security to rebuild our military ... fully man and equip our National Guard ... and restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack ..."

This from a party that continues to deny Ronald Reagan credit for winning the Cold War, but instead complains that his arms build-up was unnecessarily provocative. Far from rebuilding the military, the last Democrat president slashed the Pentagon's weapons procurement budget to dangerously low levels, even as he deployed more troops in his two terms than Reagan had. Since 2001, President Bush has had to rebuild our military after what Clinton had done, just as Reagan had rebuilt it after Carter. As an election-year show of military prowess, the Democrats' plan for "Real Security" is somewhat less convincing than a picture of Michael Dukakis in a tank.

Have we mentioned that we 'Support the Troops'?

If they want to gain Americans' confidence in their ability to respond in the face of terror, they could start by acknowledging the documentation from the Pentagon's HARMONY database, which is showing Saddam Hussein to be far more intricately involved in international terrorism than anyone had suspected. It even includes a tape of Saddam stating his intention to send foreign terrorists to attack the U.S. and Britain with weapons of mass destruction. You'd never know that from listening to the Democrats, who continue to charge that the invasion was based on phony intelligence, as they repeatedly claim in this very same declaration.

"Under President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, the war in Iraq began with manipulated intelligence and no plan for success ..."

President Bush outlined his five-step plan for Iraq in May of 2004, and while the mission has faced unexpected obstacles, it remains on track. By contrast, John Kerry claimed that his plan was a secret, which he would only reveal if he was elected. To this day, he has not clued anybody in on what that plan entails, other than to demand a rigid deadline for American withdrawal.

nice catch, for not having a plan

In regard to pre-war intelligence, the Democrats' obstinacy has become almost comical enough to rival the former Iraqi Information Minister known as Baghdad Bob. Confronted with the constant trickle of new information about Saddam's terrorist ties and WMD programs, they've only become more entrenched in their denials. "There were no weapons of mass destruction! Saddam had no connection to al-Qaeda! There are no American infidels in Baghdad! We have them surrounded in their tanks!"

"Americans want and deserve change. Democrats' plan for Real Security will protect Americans and restore our country's position of international leadership."

Our country is already in the position of international leadership, and the Democrats can't stand it. They'd rather give France, Russia and China veto power over American foreign policy, which is what they are advocating when they complain that we went to war without "our allies" on the UN Security Council.

"To Ensure Unparalleled Military Strength and Honor our Troops, we will ... Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary."

What was the 2004 campaign all about, if not Democrat opposition to the projection of American power? Moreover, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has dedicated himself to modernizing the American military, and all the Democrats ever do is demand his resignation.

"[W]e will ... Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need ..."

Sen. Kerry voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, but then he voted against an $87 billion emergency spending bill to fund, among other things, protective gear and equipment for our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contrary to his infamous statement that, "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it," Kerry never actually voted for the 87 billion. He only voted for an amendment to the bill, that would have repealed part of the Bush tax cut. What he apparently meant to say was that if the amendment had passed, he would have voted for the entire bill. In fact, the amendment was defeated, and he voted against the emergency military funding.

"[W]e will ... Guarantee that our troops ... are never sent to war without accurate intelligence ..."

Intelligence invariably requires a certain amount of guesswork, or what Democrats like to call "connecting the dots" whenever they blame President Bush for 9-11. The only way to uphold a promise never to go to war without accurate intelligence is to never go to war -- except on your own soil, where you no longer have a choice.

connecting the dots

"[W]e will ... Strengthen the National Guard, in partnership with the nation's Governors, to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad."

To say the least, the Democrats' affinity for the National Guard is a recent development. In both the cases of President Bush and former vice president Dan Quayle, they argued that service in the National Guard was tantamount to dodging the draft.

Here, as elsewhere, they try desperately to connect Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, this time by recycling the fallacy that the war left the Guard undermanned at home, thereby contributing to all the post-apocalyptic scenarios that turned out not to have happened.

"To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will ... Eliminate Osama Bin Laden."

As recently as 2003, Howard Dean, who has since been elected party chairman, said that bin Laden deserved a presumption of innocence. Now his party is demanding the al-Qaeda leader's death? Without a trial in the Hague?

Assuming bin Laden is still alive, he may not necessarily be in Afghanistan. If he's hiding in Pakistan or Iran, just what is the party that won't make a move without "our allies" going to do about it, pass a non-binding resolution?

"[W]e will ... increase our human intelligence capabilities."

But it was the Democrats who diminished our human intelligence capabilities in the Seventies, because they viewed our own intelligence agencies with more suspicion than they did our enemies. They still do, as evidenced by the NSA surveillance controversy.

"[W]e will ... Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or 'dirty bombs'."

They weren't the least bit interested in the two tons of low-enriched uranium the U.S. removed from Saddam's al-Tuwaitha facility in the spring of 2004. Nor did they bat an eye at the recently released tape, dated no earlier than 2000, in which Saddam and his scientists discuss a method of uranium enrichment called plasma separation. Their "no WMD" mantra, as well as their support for Joe Wilson and his fraudulent yellowcake report, requires that they ignore any "loose nuclear materials" that were in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

"[W]e will ... Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea."

Dems: There's more where THIS came from

It was, of course, Democrat former president Jimmy Carter who negotiated the Agreed Framework with North Korea, and Democrat president Bill Clinton who signed it. Under this arrangement, the U.S. provided the North Koreans with light-water nuclear reactors, in exchange for their promise not to produce nuclear weapons. Having put a maniac like Kim Jong-Il on the honor system, they are now promising more of the same shrewdness in dealing with Iran.

If all this chest-beating sounds a bit hollow, that's because the Donkey Kongs are just a bunch of empty gorilla suits. When crafting a document specifically to fool the voters, they claim to be Kings of the Jungle. The rest of the time, they're telling us that we must reach a consensus with the crocodiles and the sloths and the snakes. And besides, it's a "rain forest" -- do you mind?

In truth, any attempt by the Democrats to project an image of strength has got to be this preposterous, so that their supporters realize that they can play along. When other liberals read this "Real Security" pledge, they'll know that it's just their latest "we support the troops" sing-along, and that the words it contains are no more meaningful than anything overheard in the gorilla cage at the zoo.

-- Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.




Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals