Thursday, August 10, 2006

A BIG WIN FOR THE GOOD GUYS


Okay Kids. What have we learned?

Well, we’re obviously doing something right. That’s the only conclusion any sane person can come to after the Islamic-fascist’s planned sequel to 9/11 was thwarted yesterday. (Kudos to President Bush for finally using the term “Islamic- fascists” to describe these murderers, by the way.)

We have learned that those who told us that our nation has not been made safer since 9/11 were dead wrong. Without the devices and safeguards put in place since that fateful day five years ago we would most likely have had another thousand dead Americans or so to mourn yesterday afternoon.

We have learned that the NSA wiretapping program is essential to figuring out what the terrorists are planning and how they are planning it. It works. Sorry Mr. Conyers, you wont be able to impeach the president on that issue, but you’re a big dummy so I’m sure you’ll continue trying.

By the way, a big thanks to The New York Times for not exposing the government’s information on this plot before these guys could be nabbed at Heathrow. We really appreciate it.

We now know that despite the mistakes that the Bush Administration has made in the war on terror, they are clearly not as incompetent as some would like us to believe. If you can’t admit that this administration has done a good job of preventing another terrorist attack in this country, then your drinking way too much Kool-Aid.

A rather pleasant surprise in this whole ordeal is how big of a help the government of Pakistan was in breaking up this deadly plot. It seems an amazing coincidence that the one guy in that country that doesn’t want to destroy America is also the president.

Based on discussions that I’ve had with people on both sides over the last 24 hours, as well as listening to political radio and television coverage of recent events and the negative vibes that I’m receiving from LAX, I am sensing a high level of support for what has come to be known as racial profiling.

I’ve concluded that this is a great idea that most common sense Americans would love to try out. As someone who could potentially fall into the category of an individual to be profiled, that being a male between the ages of 18 and 45 of Middle Eastern descent, I think it would be to everyone’s benefit to give Muhammad and me a bit more scrutiny at the airport and let Grandma Doris from Minnesota go through without being prodded by the guy with the wand.


Wearing a headdress? Search ‘Em.

Smell like rosewater? You’re getting searched.

Speak Arabic and have a crazy beard? Yup, a little more scrutiny is in order.

Potentially Middle Eastern looking guy carrying a Gatorade and a disposable camera?

Duh!

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of these terrorists are Muslims.

While today was a great day for America and a huge victory in the war on terror, there are a few folks who one can’t help but feel sorry for.

First among those is Senator Joe Lieberman. If the Connecticut primary had been scheduled for a week later, he would have won.


Many Democrats have had awful short term memory problems since 9/11, but today’s events would probably have served as a reminder to all of them that the terrorist threat still exists and that Senator Lieberman has been one of the only Democrats who has been in support of the positive steps that the Bush Administration has taken to combat it, without politicizing those initiatives in order to pander to the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party which now controls its machinery.

I still believe that Lieberman will win the general election as an independent, but he doesn’t deserve the kind of treatment that he has received from the party which he has voted with 90% of the time. Come on all you Kos-Bloggers, put the poor guys web-site back on-line.

I also feel bad for Cynthia McKinney, who’s accusations of voter fraud will now go largely unnoticed, destroying her chances of returning to office and telling everyone about how the recent terror bust was manufactured by the Bush administration to raise the terror alert level and take everyone’s mind off of the fact that Bush hates black people.

Finally, I feel sorry for the Democratic party as a whole, as well as the liberals who have taken over that party since Bill Clinton left office. They were so close to convincing voters that they were better suited to lead congress, not because of their ideas and competence, but rather because they were not Republicans.

Now that convincing will take a lot more effort.

You see, every time American’s are reminded that terrorism is the most important issue of our time and that the threat from Islamic-fascism is real and still very much alive within this small world which we live in, many of them realize that the aggressive anti-terror policies of the Bush administration are not as awful as the administrations detractors claim.

When they actually see these policies work, swing voters understand and appreciate George W. Bush a bit more, warts and all. I hope that goes for Tony Blair in England as well.

The good guys won today, but we must remain diligent.


Be patient at the airports over the next few days and thank God that the people in those airplanes did not suffer the same fate which befell those in The World Trade Center, The Pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania.

Also, regardless of your partisan leanings or what you may think about our government, don’t be too proud to give our nation’s leaders credit where credit is due.

Sphere: Related Content

17 comments:

VE said...

I'm confused.
How can you encourage people not to let their partisan pride get in the way in congratulating the leaders of this nation, and then turn around and use this event as an excuse to play the "see, anyone who doesn't support Republicans is an idiot who supports terror" card.
I don't care for the actions of either party at the moment.
But, Dan, sometimes it seems to me that you're living in a hyopthetical world - One where the Democratic Party was given the chance to fight the War on Terror and they botched it up and millions died because of them.
That hasn't happened.
So until it does, you can't run around claiming that those who don't support many of the Republican party's questionable actions are incompetent douchebags who would let terrorists take over the world if given the chance.

Need I remind you that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch?

And yeah - I'm glad they got these assholes. And I'd be more than happy to give our nation's leaders props. If it hadn't been a BRITISH OPERATION. Did you see Bush's face yesterday? He looked just as shocked as everyone else.

That being said - I am glad Bush stopped pussyfooting and used the phrase Islamic Fascism.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

Dan, Dan, Dan. You're thinking with such a pre-9/11 mentality.

"I think it would be to everyone’s benefit to give Muhammad and me a bit more scrutiny at the airport and let Grandma Doris from Minnesota go through without being prodded by the guy with the wand."

How long do you think it will take for the terrorists to figure out that we're not patting down grandma, and then use her to smuggle explosives. In the name of liberty and freedom the only thing we can do is ensure that every grandma has a full cavity search before they fly.

Falling Panda said...

Bart, I think you need to do more research on how occurences which lead to this plot being foiled went down. It was very much a joint effort.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

If the President is doing such a supe duper gold star job of protecting us why is he quietly trying to take money away from bomb detection and security research?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_go_ot/terror_explosives_detection_4

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

I'm not trying to saythey didn't catch a bunch of assholes who were looking to hurt innocent people. I am trying to say that you're rhetoric is veering towards the group of people who think dissent is equal to treason.

Falling Panda said...

Oh and by the way. Democrats had a very poor record of confronting terrorism all throught he 90's. Clinton was simply too busy doing other things when we were attacked four times during that decade. He had 8 years. Bush had 8 months. Remeber cutting and running from Somalia? That was Clinton. Do ya think Osama may have gotten some idea of the US's willingness to fight terrorism after than little mess?

In addition to this, today's democratic party has had very little to add to the fight against terror other than their opposition to Republican ideas.

Republican's are constantly asking liberals how they would fight the war on terror and when we do the answer we get is 'well I don't know, but I sure wouldn't do what the Bush administration is doing.'

Why should I have any confidence that the Democratic party would protect us from terror when so few of them seem capable of articulating a coherent position or offer policy on the issue?

Do we have any reason to believe that Ned Lamont has any clue about how to deal with Islamic-fundamentalists? Of course not. All we know is what he would not do and that's simply not good enough for me.

Falling Panda said...

Typical left-wing counter. No dissent is not anywhere close to treason, but dissent for the sake of dissent rather than dissent with a good argument or philosophy backing it up is incredibly unpatriotic.

VE said...

Again.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
What say you?

Anonymous said...

just because you don't agree with the countless well-grounded doubts and arguments made against the bush admin and see it fit to blindly dismiss all other viewpoints, that doesn't automatically render those viewpoints "dissent for the sake of dissent." until you learn that, your not even worth arguing with.

Falling Panda said...

Undoubtedly, the 9/11 attacks occured under Bushes watch, but surely you see the difference which 8 years of foreign policy decisions has on the world and the development of a terrorist's mindset and strategy as opposed to 8 months.

The US economy sharply declined at the end of the Clinton administration as well and yet you don't hear folks blaming him for the recession which we fell into. Should they? It happened under his watch.

Falling Panda said...

And just a word on this bogus notion which the left has been throwing around for the last couple of years, that someone, I'm not sure who (Dick Cheney, Fox News, Jesus) has been trying to "stiffle dissent."

This concept is just retarded.

Is their any doubt that the dissent coming form the left over the last 6 years or so has been louder, more pointed an at times more vile and misleading than at any point in recent history?

The kind of dissent which we have experienced from the anti-Bush forces over the past few years has been 10 times more hateful and far less useful than anything Bill Clinton ever experienced.

So who exactly is equating it to treason?

VE said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
barton said...

You really think so?
I mean - how can dissent be "misleading?" Dissent is dissent is dissent. There's nothing misleading about it.

I don't think the dissent has been any more "vile" or passionate than, say, Vietnam protests or protestors during the Depression or - say, when half the nation's media lambasted Teddy Roosevelt for having dinner with a black man in the white house or - I dunno. I feel like Clinton got it bad from Kenn Star and most of the nation after the whole blowjob thing.

And, hey, Dan. Dude. We're friends here, so let's re-verify some things. Just because I question Bush's motivations and disagree with the way his administration has handled the War on Terror, it doesn't automatically make me a big supporter of the Democratic Party's leaders and their actions both current and past. Clinton's Somalia cut and run? Bad move. Clinton's Bosnia record? Not too proud of it. Clinton standing by while the Rwandan genocide went down? Don't like it.

Just need to clear that up.

I don't think we can judge yet what kind of dissent is and isn't useful (is dissent EVER useful? It seems to me that dissent is always a nuisance to the powers that be at the time). We don't know where history will take us. For all we know, hindsight will show us that we shoulda listened to the guy with the bullhorn in Union Square.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

My big question about the liquid bomb threat is why we haven't done anything about it for ten years. They found out about a plot under the Clinton administration that was to use liquid explosives. After that plot was foiled neither the goverment nor the airlines took any steps to prevent future uses of liquid explosives.

Now I'm not giving Clinton a free pass. After foiling one plot they should have invested in the technology to screen for future devices. But I think the lion's share of accountability needs to go to the current administration and both parties in congress. Thier stated number one goal is the war on terror, so for them to know about this problem and then wait until it becomes such an immeneient threat that we have to jack ourselves up to a red alert for the first time ever is irresponsible.

Tip of the Hat to the Brits for stopping this plot. Wag of the Finger to the Americans for being so lax.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

"Typical left-wing counter. No dissent is not anywhere close to treason, but dissent for the sake of dissent rather than dissent with a good argument or philosophy backing it up is incredibly unpatriotic."

1. Who gets to decide which is a good or a bad argument or philosophy?

2. Ooh you got me witht he typical left-wing counter comment. Ouch. I should have seen that typical right-wing counter to my typical left-wing counter.

You also asked who is equating dissent with treason. Umm you hit the nail on the head with the Cheaney guess. When our Vice President is suggesting that voting for Lamount is equal to giving aid and comofort to Al Queda that's pretty close to equating dissent with treason.

Am I the only one who finds it funny that this administration is so pro democracy until Hamas or Ned Almount are the products of free and fair democratic elections?

"Oh and by the way. Democrats had a very poor record of confronting terrorism all throught he 90's. Clinton was simply too busy doing other things when we were attacked four times during that decade. He had 8 years. Bush had 8 months. Remeber cutting and running from Somalia? That was Clinton. Do ya think Osama may have gotten some idea of the US's willingness to fight terrorism after than little mess?"

Democrats or the Republican controlled Congress who roasted Clinton alive until he didn't have the power over the purse to keep our troops fighting. Personally ithink Clinton wussed out a bit, but I also think that Republicans were looking for political points instead of fighting the bigger problem that now confronts us. There's enough blame for both sides.

"Do we have any reason to believe that Ned Lamont has any clue about how to deal with Islamic-fundamentalists? Of course not. All we know is what he would not do and that's simply not good enough for me."

Do we have any clue that the current Republicans in power have any clue how to deal with Islamo-fascists? Iraq was a huge missetp in the War on Terror. It's diverted man power and materials away from combating clear and present dangers such as Hezbollah, Iran, North Korea, and a resurgent Taliban. I think there are plenty of Liberals who have an idea of how to fight Islamo-fascism, but when people like Murtha try to speak up they're subjected to a political lynching. Maybe if both sides were more interested in fighting fascism than scoring political points we could work together and use the best ideas from both sides to protect our country.

So far you haven't shown me that you're more interested in fighting Islamo-fascism than bitch slapping liberals.

Are you?

P.S. Umm when Clinton took office the Republicans went after his 13 year-old daughter. To me that is pretty vile. There's been plenty of vile things said about the PResident and his family, but nothing that's 10 times worse than picking on a 13 year-old girl.

Falling Panda said...

First of all the GOP never went after Chelsea Clinton. The media did that. And i'm guessing that even when Republicans were talking about Chelsea that they were doing it in the privacy of their own homes, I'm sure they never subjected her to the kind of scrutiny which the Bush daughters have recieved. I mean some libs even have bumper stickers on their cars saying "draft the Bush twins" You see, privacy of people's homes vs. back of their car. That's a huge difference between Liberals and conservativves when it comes to saying horrible things about public figures.

Next Cheney had a good point. I'm sure Al Queda would much rather have Ned Lamont as a US senator than Lieberman in the same way that they would have much rather had John Kerry than George Bush.

Lamont's going to oppose programs like the Patriot act and the NSA that help us catch terrorists.

He's going to advocate a cut and run strategy from Iraq which is idiotic regardless of what you think of the decision to go in there in the first place.

Guess what. Al Queda loves those ideas!

That's what Cheney was saying and I think it's absolutley true. He's not equating anything to treason, he's just saying that another voice like Lamont's in the US Senate probably makes the War On Terror more difficult to fight.

Clinton was always willing to overlook terrorism. That's one of the reasons why he was so popular. Clinton never did anything about the WTC in '93, the attack on the Cole, the embassy bombings. Nothing!

Clinton didn't want to. Clinton's artificial centrism was safe, because he knew that if he ever did the things that he believed to be beneficial for the country ( liberal things), the electorate would crucify him. Bush doesn't do this and because he does what he feels is right rather than what he knows is popular, he has taken a hit at the polls because of it, But he's the president. He's supposed to make the decisions not base them on polling like Clinton whose Laizze-fare attitude toward terrorism gave them an 8 year head start on us.

What I'm saying about dissent is this, and both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of it.

Many in this country argue for their side no matter what. Even when what they are saying is clearly false or doesn't have evidence to back it up.

Conservatives do this with things like evolution and abortion all of the time, and recently liberals have played the same game with Valarie Plame or trying to convince people that President Clinton was impeached for a blow job rather than lying under oath.

I don't advocate it in either case but I feel that it's becoming an increasingly common tool with those on the far left i.e "Bush Lied, Many Died"

As for a "resurgent Taliban" We always knew that they were going to come back, but so far every time they try, our forces in Afghanistan end up massacring them. Trying to spin our work in Afghanastan as anything other than a huge sucess is very similar to what I was speaking of when I was talking about dissent for the sake of dissent.

You see, when something like the terror bust of a couple days ago goes down, and there's an element of society that is of the mindset that it was a manufactured event in order to score political points, and then goes out on the airwaves and says it like it's fact even though they have zero evidence to back it up, that's a big problem and the left has been doing it ad-nauseum since 9/11.

It's tearing our nation apart and the current administration has nothing to do with it. From all indications they are simply trying to do their job, and then along comes the left claiming that every single thing that they are doing is wrong, but offer no alternatives.

Are you defending Murtha's cut and run philosophy or are you simply saying that Repulicans are mean spirited for pointing out what a boneheaded idea it is? Because that's all were doing. That's the way dissent should be.

Not giving the party in power any credit, because you typically don't agree with them. Not cool.
"wags of the finger to the Americans for being so lax."
C'mon man. Our NSA program helped the British figure out when and how this plot was going down. It's not checking bags at airports or screening every crate that comes into our ports that is going to nab these guys it's intelligence. So if your going to criticize the Americans for being "lax" in our security,perhaps you should tell those politicians that you support to stop trying to kill the very programs which lead to the arrests of these terrorists in the first place.

Anonymous said...

An observation.

9/11 happened on everyone's watch and would have happened in some form or another on anyone's watch. It took many years to formulate, plan, organize and hatch the dastardly plot. Most of that happened on "Clinton's watch". The event was well underway when it actually went down on "Bush's watch". But the blame game doesn't have to stop there. Those two are just the scapegoats. There's also Congress, whose ever increasing salaries could fund some security measures. The Federal agencies whose leadership is too wrapped up in complicated rules, regulations, graft, publicity grabbing, and ass-kissing. Squabbling Republicans and Democrats who were too busy squabbling to notice anything else. John and Jane Q. Public who never believe anything is going to happen to them until it does and then they blame whoever happens to be in charge for all the problems.

Let's face it. It took a disaster to make everyone sit up and take notice. It took a huge loss of life to wake this country up. Everyone here was off vacationing in LaLa Land while things were boiling and festering and taking shape around the world. The really sad part is that we still don't get it. We cried and we shook our fists and we waved our flags together after 9/11 but now its pretty much back to business as usual.

Squabble on then, brothers and sisters, but don't complain when the rest of the world overtakes us and overpowers us because we have no united front.