March 30, 2006
Democrats: Real Security Plan part Deux
We continue our thoughtful analysis, using our finely developed sense of serious, of the Democrats' trail-blazing PowerPoint show, titled Real Security... which they evidently intend to be the Contrat Avec l'America upon which they will base their entire November campaign.
The previous installation -- called Democrats: Real Security Plan I, oddly enough -- skipped the Overview and ridiculed... I should say examined the first two categories, 21st Century Military and War On Terror. This post takes a look at the last three.
Real Security: the Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World
Having swiftly solved all foreign policy problems (with the exception of Iraq; see below), the Democrats turn their rapier-like intelligence upon domestic security... which appears to include gasoline. But first, the Department of Homeland Security:
Here is where the Democrats intend to go to town, showing that the "colossal mismanagement" of the Bush administration, to quote Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Margaritaville), has actually made us less secure than before 9/11.
To Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, we will:
Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.
Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America’s nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.
I'm a bit at a loss what they mean here. One can only assume that since the president has gone "A.W.O.L.," to quote the omnipresent party Chairman Howard Dean, the lousy Republicans have let a few containers, originating in odd places around the world, float right past them without being opened and searched. Clearly, 100% success the only standard by which the GOP can be measured, which they could easily reach if they only tried. It's so simple: you just go right in there ("there" meaning "everywhere") and search them.
Unlike the lackadaisical GOP, when Democrats are in charge, they guarantee they will easily obtain permission to search all ports in enemy countries, such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, la belle France, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, and Tibet (oh wait, Tibet doesn't have any ports; but they might have an airport), looking for cargo containers bound for the United States, so they can open them. Bold, indeed!
Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.
It's not easy to move entire ports to foreign countries, and they don't do it very often. Nevertheless, it's refreshing to see a party step up and declare that the Port of Long Beach will positively not be moved to Abu Dhabi, no matter what the Republicans think. Also, Newark and Dallas-Fort Worth airports will stay right where they are, unless the latter can be persuaded to shift to a nearby blue state.
I actually wouldn't mind if we gave Amtrak to la belle France, though.
Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cutting-edge technology they need.
This training will personally be delivered by the Democratic caucus, with individual senators and representatives signing up to teach such techniques as use of the water cannon on high-rise structure fires, disaster triage, and baton employment for fun and profit. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has already called "dibs" on teaching the "swarm" technique, which he learned pushing through the scrum of porcine congressmen who unwisely stood between Chuck Schumer and a microphone.
Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.
It is a little known but widely recognized fact that building a Harry Reid Memorial Spa and Casino at a local hospital will prevent viruses from mutating into human-transmittable form. "We killed the Patriot Act!" to quote Sen. Reid.
This is the biggie that we've all been waiting for, of course. The Democrats having staked out the "Iraq is in a civil war!" side of the debate, we're anxious to read how they intend to put a stop to it, and to the terrorist violence, and to the "sectarian" violence that has plagued that place for decades.
To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:
Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
...To "over the horizon" positions in responsible Tahiti and Belize, to quote Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
In an environmentally friendly effort to save paper, it appears the thrifty Democrats simply lifted this portion of their plan from the desk of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice... sort of a collegial, communitarian, "help thyself" attitude that I think we would all find refreshing on Capitol Hill. The Democrats' new slogan: "Only be sure always to call it please 'research'."
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Er -- surely the Democrats couldn't possibly mean in this passage that they will hold President Bush responsible via the United States Constitution, Article II, section 4... could they?
If so, this is pretty big news, and I confidently expect a public announcement of their intentions forthwith from Honest Hank.
We already gave you a taste of this last section in our last post; surely you remember how it begins:
To Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil, we will:
Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.
Remember, you heard it here first, and you never heard it all from those darned Republicans, who are deeply in hock not only to Halliburton, but also to KB&R and every other subsidiary of Halliburton: the Democrats' plan for independence from Middle-East oil is to eliminate reliance on oil from the Middle East.
One cannot envision a clearer statement than that.
Increase production of alternate fuels from America’s heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, please dust your desk for fingerprints. The Democrats are once again saving entire forests of paper! Though they seem to have lost the Post-It note about building more nuclear power plants -- the only proven-effective, long-term method of generating power without contributing any carbon to the atmosphere.
Given their concern about global warming, I'm sure the Democrats would be wildly in favor of shifting nearly all our electricity generation to nuclear fission plants... one wouldn't imagine they would be hypocrites, would one?
The environment is very important to Democrats, even in the context of Real Security... hence the inclusion of all this energy jazz in what is supposed to be a paper on national security. "Ultimately, part of the solution for the environmental crisis may well lie in our ability to achieve a better balance between the sexes, leavening the dominant male perspective with a healthier respect for female ways of experiencing the world," to quote former Democratic presidential nominee Albert J. Gore.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean emphatically agrees: "I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church over the bike path." It's a credit to their sincerity that they should be so concerned about saving paper by lifting so many plans and concepts from the Bush administration.
The next section of the Democrats' comprehensive plan for Real Security of the United States -- oh, wait; there are no more sections.
That's all, folks. In tribute to Messrs. Gore and Dean, please turn off your computers after reading the rest of Big Lizards. We won't mind.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 30, 2006, at the time of 4:07 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/613
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats: Real Security Plan part Deux:
» Democrats: Real Security Plan I from Big Lizards
I have waited and waited, with breathless breath, for the Democrats finally to release their long promised "plan" for governance (would it have been too much to expect a Five Year Plan?) I know many of you have been gnawing... [Read More]
Tracked on March 30, 2006 4:10 AM
» Democrats unveil their “real security” plan from Sister Toldjah
Yesterday, the Democrats released their official “Real Security” agenda, which promises to “protect America” and “restore our leadership in the world.” Give it a look see - I’m printing it out to read a littl... [Read More]
Tracked on March 30, 2006 8:12 AM
The following hissed in response by: M.A.
Bush could have fought a war on terror,
But focused on Iraq instead.
Since this invasion was an error,
Too many people now are dead.
And as for Rummy, and for Cheney,
They think they're fighting the Cold War.
They babble lots of miscellany
But don't know what they're fighting for.
The Democrats, like Reid, Obama
Pelosi, Reed, have flaws, no doubt,
But still, they want to catch Osama,
Who Bush is not concerned about.
Who tried to make our ports secure?
The Democrats. Who shot it down?
Republicans. What is the cure?
More Democrats in D.C. town.
The Dems have signed up actual thinkers
To think up terror-fighting tricks;
Repubs are merely lazy stinkers,
Still stuck in nineteen-eighty-six.
To occupy Iraq forever
Appears to be the Bushies' plan;
The plan, I think, is not too clever --
And they may lose Afghanistan.
To praise the Dems with strength and surity
May make the righties scream and curse,
But when it comes to our security,
One thing I know: Repubs are worse.
The following hissed in response by: justphishing
The following section appears to have been edited by Ted Kennedy (Notice that it calls for the harvesting of wind power only in America's heartland and excludes doing so in he vicinity of Nantucket Sound):
"Increase production of alternate fuels from America’s heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives."
The following hissed in response by: Barney15e
You made an error in the constituency which Sen. Kennedy represents. He does not in any way represent Margaritaville. He in fact hails from the smaller, yet more snobby, Martini Isle.
The following hissed in response by: justphishing
Did you notice, standing beside Pelosi and Reid during the "Real Security" unveiling, was Aunt Bea; THE THREE AMIGOS - A TEAM TO TRUST
The following hissed in response by: heldmyw
Abso-fargin'-lutely BRILLIANT piece of work, Dafydd! I haven't laughed out loud like this for a long time!
A right brutal Fisking of the biggest bit of boobery yet presented by the not-so-loyal opposition. It must hurt to be a literate Democrat this morning.
If this is their idea of A Plan for Success in the 2006 elections, I fear that they are heading straight for the iceberg with max revs on the props. This goofy document, and the promise of a subpoena, investigation, censure and impeachment circus, if the Dems control of either the House or the Senate, makes me sure to turn out and vote...
The straight Republican ticket.
The following hissed in response by: TallDave
Well, you Dems may not have a national security plan, but you've got limericks nailed!
I can only assume this means Osama will be captured using a combination of rhyming couplets and iambic pentameter.
Flashforward to 2010:
"President H. Clinton, Osama Bin Laden has just nuked Washington."
"Then the time has come for the ultimate weapon. Deploy the onomatopoeia!"
The following hissed in response by: devl42
I don't know whether to laugh at the D leadership, or cry because so many listen to them and thing they are actually saying anything useful.
Their "new plan" is to position themselves to take credit for the results actions already put in motion by the Bush administration.
And yet they still spend all their time trying to jam a stick int he spokes of any kind of progress.
Maybe THAT's the idea, to execute the Bush administration's plan, but stop interfering with it, let it work and take all the credit.
Isn't this a lot like the old mafia protection scheme (i.e. "Nice place. It'd be a shame if something happened to it..."). If they left things alone, everything would be fine. But they don't, they try and screw up everything, but promise it'll all be OK if you just put them into power.
The following hissed in response by: Mark
Just how are the Democrats going to force anything in 2006?
Second, they are going to force the Iraqi factions to compromise with each other in order to form a stable govt. Just how are they going to perform that particular feat of prestidigitation?
The following hissed in response by: Eg
I’ve come to the assessment they’ve gone so far beyond the line of comedy, parody or even black humor, they’ve become terrifying.
Hell…we don’t need no stinking Islamic terrorists, we’ve got Democrats! The Horror!!!!
The following hissed in response by: amdilli
I have a question about the energy independence section. Wasn't foreign oil independence the goal of projects like ANWR? I think they threw something together (however plagiarized some of the sections are) and as brief and generic as possible, just so that we can't say that dems don't have a plan.
The following hissed in response by: Robert
And the Dems will secure the border by ... oh, yeah, not letting anyone in who shouldn't get in. Why didn't anyone else think of that simple and supremely effective plan? Who needs details when you've got fuzzy cliches?
The above hissed in response by: Robert at March 30, 2006 1:38 PM
The following hissed in response by: Big D
The truly laughable part - it took them months (years?) to craft this policy. I imagine scores of Democratic hopefuls endlessly researching policy alternatives only to craft something identical to Bush's plans. Pathetic.
2006 slogan: "Bush sucks. Elect us. We'll do everything Bush is doing, only better."
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
Great stuff! You've made my day!
The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith
Excellent analysis, Dafydd, but you missed the Dimocrats' real solution to our energy problems: wind turbines in the House and Senate, powered by an endless supply of hot air.
I linked from GET BIN LADEN (Updated amp; bumped)
The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at March 30, 2006 4:24 PM
The following hissed in response by: American Patrol
At least the Democrats are talking about increasing our energy supply. There is a large contingent of Democrats who want to ban SUVs, enact large taxes on gas (although that was more practical when it was still cost a buck), and in general tell Americans that they must buy smaller cars that use less gas.
I think even the Democrats have bought into the possibility that alternative fuels can bring. President Bush stated that his plan is to bring these fuels to market (meaning they would be competitive and practical) in six years. That’s saying a lot!
The technology of tomorrow resides in a car that has already been built. Its starts with a Prius and adds extra batteries that can, but not required to be charged nightly which allows the car to run up to 25 miles per hour for 20 miles with out using a single drop of gasoline. The average driver can expect 100 miles per gallon. Sure the base Prius is over market value, and the conversion runs something like $7,000, but is done by seven or so engineers out on California. There is no doubt in my mind that within 6 years this car can be brought to market with Detroit and Japan working on the technology, we will see 200 or more miles per gallon cars that will shock the market because of its extremely small cost of operation. I always forget his name, but he is the head energy guy out of Saudi Arabia. When he talks he makes sense. I think he said it or someone else, but “The world is more likely to run out of uses for oil than it is to run out of oil”.
It its quite odd when you think about it. We listen to radio differently, watch tv differently, communicate differently as technology as thrown satellites, broadband and wireless technology at our feet. But to think we still power our cars practically the exact same way as when they were adding cast iron engines to buggy carts, it makes you realize that not all technology advances at the same pace. Cars are about to catch up.
Nuclear power sounds nice. How do we build them? (I know, not a simple answer)
-The American Patrol
The above hissed in response by: American Patrol at March 31, 2006 12:44 PM
The following hissed in response by: Linh_My
Re: searching containers in Viet Nam.
As a Viet Nam War vet and part time resident of todays post Doi Moi Viet Nam who has owned a home there for eight years, I find your comments about Viet Nam's willingness to allow inspection of containers a bit dated. What Americans fail to realize, is how much Viet Nam has changed over the last twenty years.
Viet Nam is rapidly becoming very Capitalistic and is increasingly allowing citizens more and more freedoms. I think that the LEFT wing media wants to keep the old picture of Viet Nam alive, because the truth of what is happening is that we won the peace.
"The state which seperates its scholars from its
warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and
its fighting done by fools," Thucydides.
The following hissed in response by: oldtimer
I believe we've heard much the same rhetoric, especially on Energy Independence, from the Democratic faithful since the days of President James Earl Carter, Jr., whose term as POTUS was marked by an energy crisis brought on by events in the Middle East, an ongoing war in Afghanistan, and American hostages in Iran. Do you suppose the authors of this "trail-blazing PowerPoint show" are caught in a time warp that makes them think we're still in 1978? Or maybe their trail is just one big circle.
The following hissed in response by: Joel
Speaking of the late 70s and early 80s, I can't help but forget that a Windfall Profits Tax enacted in 1980 actually increased oil imports, as reported by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Therefore, in our quest for energy independence, we must not enact a new WPT.
The following hissed in response by: Joel
Freudian slip! I can't help but remember the effects of the WPT...although I'd like to forget it!
The following hissed in response by: El Grande
Nice analysis, Dafydd, couldn't agree more.
Every new tax on oil brings us closer to parity, economically and socially, with China and Venezuela. China just imposed a windfall profits tax on their oil producers and Venezuela is running up the taxes on oil companies in an effort to drive them out of the country and take control of production.
More ANWR, more refining, less taxes and regulations. That's how we're going to become more independant.
The following hissed in response by: oldhats
El Grande, I couldn't agree more...get government out of the way and allow American companies to succeed on the global stage. Only then will we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The following hissed in response by: gibbyshot
Exactly! The idea is to help strengthen American oil comapnies' presence on the global market, not sabotage it. New taxes on our oil companies would effectively subsidize the foreign, government-run companies, and bring us further from achieving independence from them.
The following hissed in response by: oldhats
Bravo! We should be working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the global market!
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved