It is to laugh. I challenge you to contemplate the Democrats and "real security" with a straight face as you read this copy from CNN.com:
Let's see Harry; the last terrorist attack of like magnitude since 9/11 was? Oh, that's right: There hasn't been one. Thanks jackass, but I kind of like the real security we have now and don't see any reason to change. Are you laughing yet? If not, just keep reading about the Democrats "real security" plan.
Sounds good, Nancy: We know all about the Democrat's idea of "strong and smart" national security strategy from the previous Democrat administration. Apparently Democrats consider trading missile targeting technology to the Chi-coms for campaign cash "strong and smart"; they consider giving away nuclear reactors to the North Koreans only to have them turn around and threaten us with nukes "strong and smart", probably because Madeline Al(dumb)bright was so smitten with the Norks hospitality. We know what the Democrat's idea of what "strong and smart" national security is from the way they were so attentive to the terror threat that existed after the ORIGINAL World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993. Finally, we know what an emphasis they place on national security by the way they slashed our troop strength by 40% last time they held the White House. This is just hilarious.
Pelosi and Reid apparently expect us all to all be impressed that they flanked themselves with Madeline Albright who should win the Warren "Yertle the Turtle" Christopher award for worst secretary of state of the 20th Century and Wesley Clark, the Democrats pet general. But despite the "impressiveness" of these national security "heavy-hitters", it's hard to forget that the Democrats are the people who, last time they held the executive branch:
* Erected Gorelick's wall which removed the very resources agents could have used to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
* Boasted a president who passed on a good three opportunities to snag Osama bin Laden. In fact, they are still boasting on him.
* As far as "elminating bin Laden" in 2006 goes, if they manage to blunder into power with their "real security" plan, they had best hope bin Laden doesn't decide to phone one of his buds in the U.S. Given their strenuous objections to phone surveillance of terrorists, they would immediately end the practice they call illegal domestic wiretapping.
The veep's comments pretty much sum up the issue: Given the Democrats history on national security, it is positively laughable to hear them talk about "real security" and it is impossible to take them seriously when they do. We know their plan: Appease, retreat and defeat.