Monday, November 06, 2006

If There Was Ever Any Doubt;

November 6, 2006

That Democrats don’t take terrorism seriously, we need only look to the campaign trail this past weekend and to former President, B.J. Clinton who, at a rally at ASU for candidates Jim Pederson and Harry Mitchell said, “Republicans will have you believe that Democrats will tax you into the poor house and that you’ll meet a terrorist around every corner and trip over an illegal immigrant on the way there.”

Obviously, at least I hope, he is joking. But, is terrorism and illegal immigration something to joke about? I don’t think so. Unlike Senator John ‘F’in Kerry’s gaff this last week, B.J. won’t be able to say this was just a “botched joke.”

Listening to his words shows one just how he and his party view terrorist and terrorism. To them, it’s all a big joke. Maybe that is why, during his eight years in office, terrorist grew in strength and attacked us several times, once within the U.S. Prosecuting and imprisoning a blind sheik was their answer then and it did not stop them or even slow them down, as subsequent attacks leading up the attacks of September 11, 2001 showed.

Clinton also said that before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq was a “moderate Muslim Democracy.” Is that why in 1998, he attacked Iraq with cruise missiles, informing the nation,

"I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Was it only after he left office and President Bush took office that Iraq became a “moderate Muslim Democracy?”

Was Iraq a “moderate Muslim Country” when addressing the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1998 he said,
"Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future."

"So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering."


"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas."

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen."

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

And now, terrorism and Iraq are just a joking matter to him and his party?

What about other Democrats? Recently, as I showed, Wes Clark, disgraced former U.S. Army General claimed everything wrong is because of Iraq. Others claim we must leave Iraq and go after terrorist where they really are. Then, they claim there are more terrorists in Iraq because we are there.

If they aren’t currently in Iraq, then where are they? Do they honestly think if we leave Iraq all will be well and peaceful the world over? Do they not think terrorists will follow us wherever we go?

To redeploy our troops elsewhere, besides the high cost involved, leaves Iraq’s fledgling Democracy in peril of an insurgent takeover, as has recently happened in Somalia, another country beset with terrorist that B.J. Clinton decided to abandon early on in his administration.

Terrorism didn’t stop when we left. Somalia didn’t become peaceful and today, terrorists claim to have total control of that country.

But yet, if we just leave Iraq, terrorism will stop, they think.

Bush is accused of not doing enough to stop 9/11 and yet, when he tries to keep us informed of the dangers of returning to pre-9/11 mindset today, he is ridiculed as a “fearmonger.” After he instituted programs to strengthen our law enforcement and intelligence agency’s, to intercede and prevent another attack, it was Democrats that demonized his efforts and once the New York Times starting publishing these secret programs, they were the first ones to cry foul! It doesn’t matter that because of these programs, we haven’t been attacked again.

Today, Democrats whine that Iraq is a failure, it’s a bad policy, it’s mishandled, and on and on and on. Yet, isn’t it they who have desperately kept up efforts undermining the war effort and thwarting every move of Bush’s they can?

The icing on the cake, though, were all of the calls yesterday in favor of Saddam Hussein’s death sentencing. Every one of them also said it changes nothing in Iraq. Yet, all of these same Democrats keep repeating that capturing Osama Bin Laden will change everything. What utter nonsense. If he is even still alive he is ineffective now. He dare not communicate because once he does, we can track him. And, he knows that, if he is still alive.

I shudder to think of our future should this time tomorrow night the Democrats have stolen power back in the election. It’s too late to change ballots for those who have used mail-in ballots. I can only hope those that go to the polls open their eyes to the constant contradictions, undermining and lack of a cohesive plan for the War on Terror from the Democrats.

Cross your fingers, America, its crunch time.


1 comment:

u∃∃l!∃ said...

This points out a significant problem which is prevalent in BOTH major political parties.
It becomes more about right and left than right and wrong.

The war on terrorism should not have anything to do with right or left, but only with right or wrong. I don’t see anything in either party’s platform that states they take a weak stance on terrorism, or believe in starting wars for the sake of war, or anything that indicates that the right or wrong of the war in Iraq should have anything to do with right or left.
So why do the views on this very important issue fall down party lines?

"If parties here were divided merely by greediness for office, to take part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." [Thomas Jefferson]
I found the above quote on a website called PurpleOregon.