Tuesday, September 12, 2006

YOU'D HAVE TO BE NUTS.....


It’s a tremendously simple political equation--the voting equivalent of falling off of a log. It goes like this:

There has not been a successful terrorist attack on our nation since September 11, 2001.

Democrats have consistently gone on record proclaiming their opposition to the programs that the President has put in place in order to protect this country from terrorism.

Therefore:

How can any logical person cast a vote, which would put those Democrats in a position where they can repeal those laws?

The two indisputable facts that lead to this equation’s solution are not debatable.

Furthermore, even if you are of the belief that our involvement in Iraq has made us less safe here at home and created more terrorists around the world (a notion which cannot really be accurately assessed by the way, at least not until the next terrorist census comes out), then that’s all the more reason to keep the Bush safeguards such as The Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping in place and the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay open.

But if voters insist on punishing the President by taking control of Congress away from his party, even if it results in the eventual crippling of the executive branch to fight the War on Terror, they had better have a very good reason.


Again, the plethora of mistakes made in Iraq would be a good reason, but only if the opposition party had some sort of serious alternative plan. They don’t.

Recently Democrats and their allies in the left-wing media have accused President Bush and the GOP of attempting to scare people into supporting them by reminding people of the terrorist threat facing our country.

This is, of course, tantamount to pretending that no threat exists, a difficult argument to make based on what we know about the size and scope of the terrorists' most recent foiled attempt to blow up a number of American passenger planes last month.

It is also hypocritical. While Democrats accuse the president of fear-mongering out of one side of their mouths, they accuse him of not doing enough to keep us safe out of the other.

They scoff at the comparisons conservatives have made between the cut-and-run faction of the Democratic party, (which would assume almost all of the leadership positions in the House Of Representatives if Democrats pick up the 15 seats that they need), with the European leaders who sought to appease Hitler as well as those who balked at confronting the confederacy during the Civil War. Yet when asked why such a comparison is not accurate, their answer is not a historical lesson in the nuances of politics of the mid 1800’s or a defense of the actions taken by Neville Chamberlain, but rather a diatribe on how George W. Bush is trying to scare Americans in to voting for him.

The Democrats' new strategy suddenly appears a bit desperate, as if they were caught off guard when the GOP actually decided to start campaigning.

Even more striking however are the issues that the Democrats will be unable to use in their attempts to bludgeon the president.

The economy is chugging along and gas prices are falling.

The Democrats had to close the door on their “culture of corruption” issue as soon as Capitol Hill police opened the door to William Jefferson’s freezer. And it turns out that “Plamegate” was little more than a fairy-tale spun by Joe Wilson himself and kept alive by wishful thinking at the New York Times. Karl Rove is still waiting for his apology, by the way.

By contrast, Republicans have not made nearly enough of how the leadership of Congress will change if Democrats do manage to take over.

Most of the Democratic candidates running for the seats which the Dem’s hope to pick up are relative moderates. But the long-serving representatives, who will assume leadership positions and committee chairmanships in the event of a Democratic majority, are ideologically as far away from the American mainstream as can be.

Lifelong uber-liberal politicians such as Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi promise strict oversight on an administration they claim is running roughshod over the Constitution.

But in addition to endless investigations of the administration, which are most likely little more than retaliation for the GOP investigations of the Clintons, their legislative aim is a return to policies which most Americans rejected at the end of the Carter presidency such as higher taxes, increased regulation of business and a foreign policy which seeks to negotiate, equivocate and coexist rather than one which will do whatever it takes to eliminate threats to our nation.

This very group's vehement opposition to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive anti-Soviet policies of the 1980’s--policies which resulted in the end of the Cold War--should serve as a reminder of how wrong those on the far left are when it comes to the most important issues of our time.

Let’s recap. No terrorist attack since 9/11. Over 5,000 terrorists captured or killed since The War on Terror commenced.

Democrats want to take away the tools, which the Bush Administration has used to prevent attacks and to capture and kill a significant portion of those 5,000.

Most people don’t go into the voting booth and cast their ballot based on the potential make-up of the House and Senate. However, the Democrats want this round of elections to be a referendum on President Bush. It is only right, therefore, that we examine the successes of this administration in addition to its failures. That is the only way to decide whether a Congress that will dismantle his successful anti-terror policies serves the national interest.

Sphere: Related Content

9 comments:

barton said...

I'd debate you, but - by your own admission - this is not debatable.

Buddy - Do you really live in fear?

Let me ask you - If a terrorist attack DID happen would you be revamping your stance? Or would you just say - See, this is why we need Bush.

Falling Panda said...

I don't live in fear. No one should. But I am aware of what our enemies would like to do to us. If we become complacent, that is exactly when we'll get hit again.

And if that happens who gets the blame?

Getting hit again may not be due to presidential negligence, but I find it hard to believe that not getting hit up until this point and the terrorist safegaurds which have been put in place have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. Do you think it's mere coincidence?

barton said...

I guess I just don't buy it.
I'm not gonna be a douchebag and say that it's mere coincidence, but I'm also not gonna concede and say that the path taken in the aftermath of 9/11 was the ONLY way. I just wish a little more patience, a little more humility in the face of history's rising tide had been exerted.
I'm not talking about complacency. I'm talking about respect and accountability.
We had the world's sympathy on September 11, 2001.
Now we're reviled.
So I'm just not convinced that we've made our nation any safer. Sure, I think measures have been taken to provide current generations with the illusion of comfort, and those measures have done us right, but in the end, it seems we're only truly succeeding in alienating the rest of the world.
We've willingly sacrificed our own liberties.
We've created an environment where those who use the very freedoms we claim to stand for to question or to doubt are instantly branded "terrorist sympathizers" or "soft."

I remember when Bush got re-elected in 2004 and he recieved a letter from the Pres of Bob Jones University. It said - "In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you."

Bush says that the terrorists hate us because "they hate our freedoms." But I would argue that the writer of that letter is a man who hates freedom. He hates that people living in his country are free to practice other religions (or none at all), free to screw around, free to sodomize to their hearts content, free to read whatever they want, free to stay up past their bedtime.

If Bush truly cares about freedom in its purest forms, why didn't he come out and denounce that letter (which was made quite public?), why didn't he take any means to distance himself from such sentiments?

Dan, I've known you and admired your convictions for 10 years now. Never once in all of or debates have I thought that we didn't want the same things from/for our country and - perhaps more importantly - from/for ourselves. I just think we fight on different fronts.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

Personally for me the response to Katrina was the straw that broke the camel's back. We're constantly asked to imagine the devestation a terrorist could create with a dirty bomb or biological weapon. How grave that situation would be, and how we need to be prepared because there are such devestating possibilities lingering out there.

Then Katrina hit New Orleans.

Regardless of whether or not the administration knew the leavees would/could break, they did. Looking at the devestation as if it were a complete suprise, the same way a suitcase dirty bomb going off in Time Square would be, we failed. A city was left out to rot for several days. Because of that I don't believe the current administration or congress, both sides, have any credibility left.

Why should I believe that they will protect me and keep me safe?

Falling Panda said...

So Bart, do you agree with Rosie O'Donnell's statements that radical christianity is just as great a threat to our nation as radical Islam?

Not really related just a side-note.

Also, I never saw the presidents actions as having "squandered" good-will from around the world. I saw the rest of the world, once again, unwilling to rise up to a great challenge. The views of many of those in Europe are simply nuts. A book claiming that Jews were behing 9/11 was a huge bestseller in France.

In Venezuala Hugo Chavez recently said that the idea that the US government was behind 9/11 was a theory which deserved more examination.

And a recent poll shows that a majority of Arabs don't believe that Arabs were the ones who hijacked those four planes.

Goodwill is fine, but it doesn't solve problems unless those who are expressing the goodwill don't stab you in the back when you ask them for their help.

As for this concept of us "willingly sacrificing our own liberties" go a little further on this, because so-far I have felt zero impact of these liberties which I have given up. I haven't sacrificed anything.

Is their some right that I had before which is gone now?

I know that the old "slippery-slope" argument is a favorite among liberals, but to be honest these so-called "sacrifices" have such little impact on the Average American's life that it feels like pure politics every time some liberal makes a big stink about overturning the Patriot Act or Bush listening in on our phone calls.

I mean do you really believe that the government is listening in on YOUR phone calls Bart? Really?

And I don't even have to mention the HUGE changes Lincoln and FDR made to the law when they were prosecuting wars.

As for Katrina, it was indeed a failure on all levels and while I believe that Ray NAgin and Kathleen Blanco deserve the vast majority of credit for screwing that situation up, Bush should have undoubtably adressed the situation more quickly.

That being said. There was no way that the physical devestation of Katrina could have been prevented.

We could not listen in on Katrina's calls or infiltrate a tropical storm cell in order to prevent it. There was very little intelligence coming into the CIA from th Gulf of Mexico informing us of Katrina chatter.

While Katrina's aftermath should serve as an important lesson in emergency management I don't believe it is fair to equate it's natural devestation to a terrorist attack which is spurred on by dopey human beings rather than high winds.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

So you don't think the aftermath of Katrina can possibly be equated to the aftermath of a major terrorist attack? Why don't you believe that "it is fair to equate it's natural devestation to a terrorist attack which is spurred on by dopey human beings rather than high winds"?

Isn't devestation, devestation. When people are in desperate need of help do you think they really care whether the devestation was caused by a "dopey human" or a hurricane? Of course not, they just want someone to help them.

I'm glad you can lay the majority of the blame on Nagin and Blanco, but for me the buck stops at the White House.

A Functionally Illiterate Parakeet said...

Oh and PS: There were many ways that the physical devestation of Katrina could have been prevented. If we had properly maintained the levees so that they could withstand a Cat 5 storm surge. If we hadn't allowed the barrier islands to disappear over the last fifty years they would have slowed Katrina and downgraded her power as they used to do.

barton said...

Actually, yes, I do believe that Radical Christianity is a great threat to American liberty especially when/if it finds its way into the White House.

As far as liberties go - damn you. I was gonna play the old slippery slope card. You preemptive striker, you. My only further place to go was the "what's next." I totally agree that pesonally, I haven't felt any impact. But then I'm white and middle-class.

I wouldn't judge a nation's sanity based on its bestsellers. We've got Ann Coulter, Tuesdays With Morrie, and Who Moved My Cheese on our list. Going off the number of self-help bestsellers alone, one could easily decide that we are one miserable nation.

HardScores Staff said...

You don't believe the anthrax that killed five people since 2001 were terrorist attacks?