Surrender Is Not An Option. Neither Is Democratic Leadership.
Peace At Any Price Is Too High A Price
By Erick Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The planned airline bombings by the terrorists should show the American people one thing, if only one things -- the Democrats' ideas on national security are bad for the safety of this country. Cut and run will not work because the terrorists do not follow the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Ned Lamont. Peace at any price is too great a price.
It would be nice if that were not the case. It would be nice if we could leave Iraq and know we were secure. Sure, the Democrats can say the terrorists were incited by the War in Iraq and the Israeli Conflict. This morning we are learning that this attack had been in the planning for over a year -- well before the Israeli conflict. So, that leaves blaming this attack on "Bush's War." And yet, September 11, 2001, happened before "Bush's War." Should we draw no lines between the two?
Of course, we can draw lines in this conflict -- lines in the sand and other lines. We can draw lines between a group of people raised in difference countries who all share a common ideology based on a shared religion. We can draw lines between a group of people across the west who would rather close their eyes and ignore what the rest of us see happening than do anything that might look like war or religious bigotry. We can draw lines between the White House, 10 Downing Street, and the Lodge in Canberra where there are three men in the west willing to recognize the threat for what it is and deal with it. And, regrettably, we can draw a line from Nancy Pelosi to Howard Dean to the lefty blogosphere to Ned Lamont to the Democrats' return to a Vietnam mentality and know, from that line, that the Democrats in charge at a time when men who want to kill us and who have stronger wills than the Democrats would be a very bad thing for this country.
To those of you who want to stay home in November because the Republicans are spending like Democrats, well, I hope today opens your eyes. We cannot afford to sit November out. We cannot afford a Democrat party that has only two agenda items: Impeach Bush and Peace At Any Price.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Today's New Site: Right Shelf — Comments (1) »
Surrender Is Not An Option. Neither Is Democratic Leadership. 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Isn't this part of the war on terror? We have at least eleven million people in our country illegally. That is a crime whether their intention is terrorism or not. And we know some of them must be terrorists. Why would any terrorist organization ignore such an easy way to get into a country?
President Bush and the democrats wants to legalize them all, terrorist and invader. What will we do about the borders?
On the other hand, it's hard to see how our adventures in Iraq or Israel's adventures in Lebanon had anything to do with foiling this plot. Are we safer because of these wars? No, we're safer because UK law enforcement seems to have done their job in fine fashion.
And it sure looks like the whole "fight them in Iraq, so that we don't have to fight them here" theory took a big hit this morning.
and we are safer because the UK, with others, bought into OUR view that terror has to be confronted. Are you poking for a scrap?
I think -- though I could be mistaken -- the idea is that the Left (and/or the Democrats, modulo anamolies such as a particular CT Senator, who might not be a Democrat anyway, but might become one again later, and it's all really confusing) are Objectively Pro-Terrorist, because of their opposition to certain Crucial Intelligence-Gathering Strategies, which may or may not have been employed by the British in this case. Were they in power, they would certainly have dropped the ball here, for reasons which are, I assure you, forthcoming.
In any case, were the Democrats in power, their third action (first: impeach Bush! Second: gay marriages for everyone!) would be to call up Osama, Nasrallah, etc, and formally surrendor to the terrorists, which, I suppose, would probably mean we would have to submit to contradictory terms to various groups. The resulting contradictions would lead to the distruction of the world through a rift in the fabric of reality, and we would all vanish in a puff of logic.
1). Slash funding for Iraq, in order to force the troops back home.
2). Blame the Republicans when the nascent democracy in Iraq falls to a repressive government, resulting in the mass murder of ethnic minorities, too-forward women and homosexuals.
3). Force the Israeli government to treat terrorist organizations guilty of numerous violations of war crimes as if they were civilized foes fighting by mutually agreed upon rules.
4). Pout because various unreasonable people object that this is unfair to Israel. After all, it isn't if the Democrats were bowing to the pressure of the antiwar movement and just let Israel get pushed into the sea. Excuse me: "cut all aid to both sides"*.
5). Resume the antiterrorism policies of the 1990s.
6). Blame the Republicans when a major American port city is subject to a biological/radiological attack, N (N being defined as a number between 10 and 14) months later.
7). Generally whine about why they're never taken seriously about national security issues.
Since you asked.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Yet.
To believe Democrats if they get it will actually push Impeachment. They will be to busy investigating the many executive power problems he has made. But, you don't have to worry about me helping Democrats I live in one of the heavily Republican districts.
Though as I have said before you can thank My Man Mitch for the probable loss of 3 house seats this fall in Indiana.
All you say is true Erick. We all NEED to understand where the lines are drawn between the two parties. Some of us already DO understand that our opinion doesn't matter, just our votes. Casting them in November NEEDS to be done to make a statement against the Dems, casting them FOR the Repubs. will sadly only make the statement that whatever we want or believe or would like to see done domestically has little bearing on the value of our time or the meaning of our vote when we DO go to the polls...once again our security rides higher than all else. Nov. '06 will, again, be a 1 issue election. I have already said I can't NOT vote, and I CAN'T vote for a Dem...unfortunately, the Repubs will continue to ignore the Conservative wing of "my" middle-America when they see another "W" in the "R" column without having had to do anything else other than BE an "R"...
Sigh.....
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
Winning the war is THE issue. Everything else becoems academic if the war is not won.
The only place conservatism should come before country is in the dictionary.
Country before Conservatism. I have repeatedly said I have no choice but to vote R...I got dibs on needing a shower afterwards.
While the war rages we have additional business to tend to...borders for one. That should be part of the gwot strategy, but it continues NOT to be...ports & cargo containers as well...then there's spending...if they had their wits about them, they could be findiing money for the prosecution of the war without this level of debt...you know? Shifting priorities towards where the spending REALLY needs to be focused...kinda like us average dumb Joe Q. Citizens have to do every month with our own "real life" budgets?
While you are right, the issues remain inter-twined...
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
not to many in the "sit this one out" wing. Whenever the point about terrorism trumps all comes up, they mumble about something else to justify their childish acts. "War on Terror? Yeah, it's important, but I want that veto pen rattled first." "War on Terror? But I saw a Mexican in my neighborhood, so I'm sitting out." "War on Terror? But I'm mad Shaddegg didn't win Majority Leader. We need new blood anyway, so my sitting out will bring that about 6 years down the road."
Then the GOP needs to let them stay home and sulk, while positioning themselve to maximize the number of "Lieberman Democrats" - and then proceed to go for common-sense solutions that will attract a wider base of support.
I think it is way past time for Ken Mehlman to flip Richard Viguerie and Bruce Bartlett (two of the more vociferous critics of President Bush/the GOP) the bird.
Seems to me that they _have_ been listening to you all on the immigration point, rather than listening to me, creating the possibility that I might justify adopting your position toward the party for precisely the opposite policy reasons. It seems a bit ironic.
I don't mean to open up our previous debate, but had been wondering if that change in scenario might have triggered a change in your perception. Apparently not, or perhaps not sufficiently.
Sigh... in unison.
John E.
The "touted changes" appear to be lipstick on a pig to me...hence no change in perception...
we are in the "sigh" unison...
;-)
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
The quote from a Spanish voter interviewed during the election held in the immediate aftermath of the 3/11 Madrid train bombings was " if we give them what they want, maybe they'll go away and leave us alone." This is the hope of the Democratic Party today.
"In War; Resolution:
In Defeat; Defiance:
In Victory; Magnanimity:
In Peace; Good Will"- Winston Churchill
He also added that those peoples that could not, those that would not, those that did not adhere to those principles didn't have to worry about their freedoms long either, because they were sure to lose them.
While I may agree with you it seems the American people don't. When Pelosi is in the main stream of Americans then you will have a hard time winning the message.
is a vote for Kos, and he has all but admitted he will kneel before Nasrallah and the Mad Mullahs themselves. At that point, I don't want to hear complaints from the sit out crowd that foreign policy is being destroyed by the nutroots.
Your arguement that Democratic leadership would be bad for the safety of this country is not supported by facts. While our track record prior to 2001 was not perfect (and probably never will be), the Clinton administration did a reasonable job of keeping terrorism at bay. Bush's leadership however, has made a joke of our foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq has created far more terrorists than we may have killed in Afghanistan. Your claim that Democrats are for "peace at any price" couldn't be further from the truth since we haven't heard anyone call for a withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Clinton CREATED anti-Americanism in Somalia, Darfur, and Eritrea. He also did much the same in the Balkans. He passed up Bin Laden twice from Yemen. He showed Europe that America was willing to capitulae on international affairs as long as we got sweet business deals in exchange.
He sat back while oil-for-food was running amok, and ignored the countless no-fly zone violations with a handful of exceptions.
Are you kidding me?
Bush's leadership has plenty of room for criticism, but you are fundamentally wrong in one basic premise: Iraq did not create terrorists. Iraq was the playing field of OUR choosing to draw them out. No one is asking for a withdrawal from Afghanistan? Where have you been? The left repeatedly suggests we have done all we can do there, and continuing to be there is no longer productive. The left also has repeatedly suggested that Afghanistan is no better off now than before the Taliban was removed...with the exception of Kabul-proper.
What rock are you hiding under? I want one...
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
of "at bay."
If you exclude the bombings of two US embassies, two US military facilities, and the USS Cole then hell yeah he kept the terrorists at bay.
If you consider those events then the word "feckless" comes to mind.
recruiting success, so be it. Their goals and world view fails the smell test. They are not fighting for human rights, they fight to suppress them. Let then crawl out from the shadows and be counted so that we can send them to the land of 72 virgins.
'Nuff said.
Any man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave. - AdT