…in national security:
Assume that Democrats know that Republicans will generally support them when Democrats are in the White House and taking tough national security positions. But the Democrats also send unmistakeable signals to the electorate that, if they are pushed out of power, they will undermine a Republican administration trying to do exactly the same, and taking exactly the same actions. Their support is not reciprocal even when the action is the same.
It should be abundantly clear by now to any objective observer that most of the fulmination against George Bush by the Democrats was nothing but convenient posturing.
Utterly insane comment from Ken about the strategic and violent position that the Republicans “should pursue” in response to this, in 3… 2…
“It should be abundantly clear by now to any objective observer that most of the fulmination against George Bush by the Democrats was nothing but convenient posturing.”
Yeah. That’s the disgusting part. The depressing part is, it worked.
We’re still waiting for President Obama to comply with candidate Senator Obama’s policy on the presidents obligation to go to congress for approval to use military force on something that is no threat to the US or its allies, something that every democrat would have screamed about if Obama were republican.
We are still in Libya but when was the last time you saw a story about it on the news?
Kind of like how Republicans can lay into Democrats about entitlement spending, debt, and welfare; then up the ante when they get into office.
Throw them all out.