Democrat Plan to Combat Terrorism: Can You Say Allahu-Akbar?
Both Parties Claim Edge as Terror Is Reinforced as a Campaign TopicBoth sides can claim whatever they choose to, but only the Republicans offer any real chance of successfully combating these Animals of Islam.
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 11, 2006; Page A12
Democrats and Republicans alike rushed to invoke yesterday's terrorist scare in Britain in congressional campaigns, underscoring how a series of national-security-related developments are refocusing and sharpening the political debate three months before the midterm elections.
Campaigning in Connecticut, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost Tuesday's Democratic primary and is now running as an independent, said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."
Rep. Mark Kennedy, the Republican Senate candidate in Minnesota, used the alleged plot as a campaign wedge only hours after it was disclosed.
"The arrests this morning in Great Britain make it clear that now, more than ever, this is an ongoing battle and we need leaders in Washington who remain committed to doing what is right instead of what may be seen as politically advantageous," he said. To amplify the point, Kennedy endorsed Lieberman over the GOP candidate in the race, Alan Schlesinger.
Democrats would have us in a perpetual paper-chase, pursuing judges for a warrant prior to every phone call the NSA wishes to monitor. Democrats would have us molly-coddling every captured terrorist, making sure that his pride wasn't damaged during interrogation. Heaven forbid that any terrorist we capture might suffer embarrassment at the hands of a female interrogator. That might upset our Democrat friends delicate nerves. Heck if we even slightly mistreat a prisoner in the act of finding out some fact that saves a thousand lives, our Democrat friends would probably not be able to sleep for weeks.
Democrats offer nothing in this war but obstruction and complaint. I would give you pretty good odds that had either Al Gore (the inventor of the internet) or John Kerry-Heinz won the election, especially if accompanied by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in leadership roles in Congress, America would have suffered more than one major attack by the terrorists.
Democrats just don't understand national defense. They just don't understand how to combat evil, or even what true evil is.
Full Story: Reid Has the Solution to Terrorism? Riiight!
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 8:34 AM
3 Comments:
How about putting US Citizens in military jails for over three years before ever charging them with anything? How about repeatedly kicking detainees in the groin and hitting them with flashlights? Is speaking out against these human rights abuses too soft for you?
We will only win the "war on terror" if we cut off the supply of terrorists willing to kill themselves just to kill a few of us. If we do the kinds of things listed above, do we sound any better to the kid on the streets of Gaza, Bagdad, or Cairo than their own oppresive governments? If we act unilaterally and don't respect human rights, we just help the jihadists recruit new terrorists.
You conservatives have it right, this is a moral war. But you win a moral war with moral acts, not just with bombs and tanks. You convince the world through your ACTIONS (not self congratulatory words about your nation's moral superiority) that your cause is just, and in response the world helps you -- thus isolating the terrorists and giving law enforcement the allies it needs to get ahead of the terrorists.
Question: how did the Iraq war help stop the latest attacks?
Answer: it didn't.
Truth: If we had stayed on point and fulfilled our pledge of getting Osama, the plot would have never gotten as far as it did.
Alan kansas,
First, How do you know what the Iraq war has or has not done to promote our national security? Are you an Oracle? Do you have some mystical source of knowledge that the rest of us lack?
No, like most Liberals, you confuse your assumptions with facts. It is your opinion that the Iraq war has not prevented any attacks, as for proof, you have NONE.
Second, minor physical abuse is not torture, never has been. You will find corporal punishment of the sort you describe in any American prison. Not all of it is right, but it does not rise to the level of "torture."
Where in the heck did you get this myth that we don't respect human rights? The terrorists are the one sawing the heads off of their living prisoners, not America. The terrorists are the ones burning and desecrating the bodies of their victims, stringing them up and burning them, not us.
The prisoners at Guantanamo receive treatement at our hands that the prisoners of our enemies could only dream of. 4500 calories of food/day choice of menu, culturally sensitive menus, access to the Muslim call to prayer 5 times/day, privacy and respectful silence during prayer time, recreational equipment...your argument is as ludicrous as it is naive.
There is no comparison between our behavior and that of our enemies. We are the moral party. We occupy the moral high ground.
As to these alleged citizens who are in military jails for over three years, I suggest you go study history and how prisoners are treated during time of war.
You talk like someone who just fell off the turnip truck.
Alan kansas,
You also avoid responding to the question addressed. It is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to attack the President for his efforts to monitor the actions of terrorists, imposing as many obstructions as possible and then accuse him of not doing enough to combat terrorism.
Liberals have no shame.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home