North Korean Missiles Aimed At Democrats.....
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (07/17/06)
or at least they should be since Democrats don't want to defend against them. What more needs to be said? In the coming years technology will proliferate and so will intercontinental ballistic missiles and the miniaturized nuclear weapons that can be put on them. Democrats hate America and will not support an offensive action against evil proliferators who might one day soon have the capability to launch a nuclear attack against many of our cities simultaneously. Even worse, the Democrats have steadfastly refused to support even a defensive capability that might one day protect us from an attack that has already been launched against us. If this is not treason I cannot imagine what is? If this does not call for a Constitutional Amendment to make Democrats Illegal I can't imagine what would? Yes, the Democrats are that outrageously suicidal and yes very few of us have the courage to declaim against what is happening to us. The hand writing was clearly on the wall before Pearl Harbor, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, and before Katrina, but the Democratic sleeping pill was too strong, exactly as it is now.
Below please find 5 quick examples from the Internet about Democrats and missile defense:
"Recall that before September 11, the Senate Democrats, with John Kerry taking a strong leading position, were doing everything they could to kill President Bush's initiative on national missile defense. In May 2001 the Boston Herald's Woodlief wrote that John Kerry "wants to croak the hugely costly nuclear missile defense system." And just one day before the 9/11 attacks Joe Biden (D., Del.) gave a National Press Club speech outlining Democrat opposition to national missile defense." (NRO)
In 1998, only four Senate Democrats--Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--joined with all 55 Republicans to support debate on the Cochran missile defense measure.
In the House, the dynamics were different. Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon and South Carolina Democrat John Spratt offered a 15-word bill endorsing national missile defense, but with no timetable and no conditions. Conservative Republicans wanted a bill that most Democrats would oppose, to sharpen party differences before the November 1998 election. The Weldon-Spratt bill, was supported by all but two Republicans. The bill passed easily, 317-105, after a secret session in which the Rumsfeld commission briefed members about the rogue-nation threat.
Democrats fall into two main camps. The first group opposes missile defense because it could mean junking the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which they see as the cornerstone of strategic stability. Unfortunately, the first group of Democrats appears to be larger than the second.
Many in the administration . . . argue that deploying an ineffective defense can still be an effective system simply because it would cause uncertainty in the minds of our adversaries. That position is based on the flawed assumption that a president would be willing to gamble our nation's security on a bluff, and that no adversary would be willing or able to call such a bluff. Instead of increasing our security, pursuing a strategy that cannot achieve its goal could leave our nation less secure and our world less stable." -Senator Tom Dashle, Democrat, South Dakota, May 2, 2001
"Throughout July, the Bush administration sketched out details of its proposed $8.3 billion ballistic missile defense testing program. But getting its plans fully funded will require winning over Senate Democrats who have severely criticized the program."
If somebody will write in to tell me why we don't need missile defense I will eat my hat.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
