Election Talk: T-Minus 20 Days And Counting
Hugh is on the election trail, after having spent a whirlwind tour of seriously contentious Senate races, and he highlights Jim Geraghty's piece today on NRO's TKS blog. In short Mr. Geraghty shares the same view we do:
There is no way, on God's green Earth, that this nation is going to put a bunch of loons in charge of America when these people cannot be trusted with national security.
And we concur. When it comes down to election day, the one subject the Democrats do not want in a voter's head is which party has been better on national security? While many uninformed people will proclaim there are problems in Iraq (and we are not discounting those problems), they couple that with national security.
Yes, the theater in Iraq is a part of the greater, overall war on terror. Yes, the invasion was designed to provide security for this nation from a dictator that had not given up on his failed 1991 war. But when I say "national security" I am referring to the measures taken by the president and our intelligence agencies to ensure that we will not be struck again by these animals. That means surveillance. It has to do with being vigilant and steadfast in going after these people. Put a stranglehold on their money. Make it very hard for them to find sanctuary. In short, make their lives as much of a living H*ll as we possibly can. And that we are doing.
Yet the Democrats came out swinging over the NSA's Terrorists Surveillance Program proclaiming it to violate the Constitution, and stating the president had virtually turned america into a surveiallnce state, of sorts. They have never acknowledged the benefits of that program. Those advantages made themselves quite prevalent when the NSA shared information with both Great Britain and Canada to foil terrorist attacks against them and us.
The SWIFT program became a point of controversy for the Democrats, too. The SWIFT program was being used to track the financial transactions of our enemies, and they threw a hissy fit--again about privacy--because we were tracking them without revealing it to America. What is it with the Democrats and wanting to reveal EVERY tactic we use in this war? It makes no sense, and no wonder why people question how today's Democrats would react to the clandestine operations conducted during World War II.
Would they have blown the lid on the Normandy invasion? What about the existence of the A-Bombs before we dropped them? Would they have revealed the locations of our carrier force that was not present at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th? I know it may sound harsh to even make such allusions, but in fact the Democrats seem to think that everyone should be privy to every little detail about this war, and our effrots to end the existence of radical Islam.
And they love to stand up for the terrorists. Take, for example, the recent Detainee Treatment Act. The most oisterous opposition to the bill from their side was that the terrorists no longer have habeas corpus rights. Excuse me, but since when have ANY prisoners or detainees--enemies of ours--during war ever been given such rights? The Germans, Japanese, and Italians captured in World War II were not bestowed those rights. And the German saboteurs in Ex Parte Quirin were also not given these rights. We did not convey these rights to any Koreans or NVA/VietCong prisoners taken. So why do the Democrats want these rights for these people now?
These are three fine examples of why these people cannot be trusted with national security. They are willing to give away our rights to our enemy; They are willing to make us blind and deaf to our enemy's movements, tactics, and plots; They are willing to make us unaware of the money being shifted around for those plots. And they claim to stand for national security.
Based on where they stand on these three items alone, I cannot see anyone--in good conscience--voting for vulnerabilty in this election. And the vote does not just apply to the homeland. It applies to our efforts abroad. We see only Iraq, and now the dinosaur media is turning its attention back to Afghanistan (way to go guys, but we have never taken our eyes off of Afghanistan; you are a bit late in returning). The president said much of this war would be conducted from the shadows--the very places that our enemies operate in. We will never know the fullest extent which we have fought these animals, but we are continuing it nonetheless.
The Democrats claim that to "stay the course" is an exercise in defeat. It will only make things worse (they saw as they wave the NIE, which was completely misread by them and their enablers in the press). Yet their answer alone invites disaster. Withdrawal, redeployment, whatever thay have decided to call it this week, is not the answer either. To do so would only open the floodgates from Iran and Syria, and Iraq would become even worse than what it was under Saddam. Saddam was secular, but his hatred for America made him many terrorist allies. Can we imagine what a theocratic Iraq, in the image of Iran, would be like? I shudder at the thought.
And that is just one of many thoughts that we will be taking to the polls come Novermber 7th. If you want an end to victory in the war on terror and a vulnerable nation, open to all of its enemies, then vote for Democrats. I am sure that in no time we will be reminded WHY the president took those steps to protect the nation soon enough, and the toll will likely be considerably higher than 2996. But if we want this nation kept safe, secure, and prosperous, then the only answer we have is to keep the GOP in power.
It comes down to things as simple as that. The Democrats stink at doing their job when it comes to national security. The GOP does not, and remains staunch in the face of an enemy that would rather wipe us out than try to make nice. The Democrats think they can negotiate and appease these animals. Their idea of appeasement is something so simple that nuanced Democrats cannot seem to grasp.
Convert, or die. The Democrats are still trying to find the gray area within those two choices. Fortunately for the nation, the Republicans see it in black and white, and we have presented a third option for the our enemy. Everyone fights. No one quits. And yes, we will win out over you because we are stronger than you.
Marcie
Hugh is on the election trail, after having spent a whirlwind tour of seriously contentious Senate races, and he highlights Jim Geraghty's piece today on NRO's TKS blog. In short Mr. Geraghty shares the same view we do:
There is no way, on God's green Earth, that this nation is going to put a bunch of loons in charge of America when these people cannot be trusted with national security.
And we concur. When it comes down to election day, the one subject the Democrats do not want in a voter's head is which party has been better on national security? While many uninformed people will proclaim there are problems in Iraq (and we are not discounting those problems), they couple that with national security.
Yes, the theater in Iraq is a part of the greater, overall war on terror. Yes, the invasion was designed to provide security for this nation from a dictator that had not given up on his failed 1991 war. But when I say "national security" I am referring to the measures taken by the president and our intelligence agencies to ensure that we will not be struck again by these animals. That means surveillance. It has to do with being vigilant and steadfast in going after these people. Put a stranglehold on their money. Make it very hard for them to find sanctuary. In short, make their lives as much of a living H*ll as we possibly can. And that we are doing.
Yet the Democrats came out swinging over the NSA's Terrorists Surveillance Program proclaiming it to violate the Constitution, and stating the president had virtually turned america into a surveiallnce state, of sorts. They have never acknowledged the benefits of that program. Those advantages made themselves quite prevalent when the NSA shared information with both Great Britain and Canada to foil terrorist attacks against them and us.
The SWIFT program became a point of controversy for the Democrats, too. The SWIFT program was being used to track the financial transactions of our enemies, and they threw a hissy fit--again about privacy--because we were tracking them without revealing it to America. What is it with the Democrats and wanting to reveal EVERY tactic we use in this war? It makes no sense, and no wonder why people question how today's Democrats would react to the clandestine operations conducted during World War II.
Would they have blown the lid on the Normandy invasion? What about the existence of the A-Bombs before we dropped them? Would they have revealed the locations of our carrier force that was not present at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th? I know it may sound harsh to even make such allusions, but in fact the Democrats seem to think that everyone should be privy to every little detail about this war, and our effrots to end the existence of radical Islam.
And they love to stand up for the terrorists. Take, for example, the recent Detainee Treatment Act. The most oisterous opposition to the bill from their side was that the terrorists no longer have habeas corpus rights. Excuse me, but since when have ANY prisoners or detainees--enemies of ours--during war ever been given such rights? The Germans, Japanese, and Italians captured in World War II were not bestowed those rights. And the German saboteurs in Ex Parte Quirin were also not given these rights. We did not convey these rights to any Koreans or NVA/VietCong prisoners taken. So why do the Democrats want these rights for these people now?
These are three fine examples of why these people cannot be trusted with national security. They are willing to give away our rights to our enemy; They are willing to make us blind and deaf to our enemy's movements, tactics, and plots; They are willing to make us unaware of the money being shifted around for those plots. And they claim to stand for national security.
Based on where they stand on these three items alone, I cannot see anyone--in good conscience--voting for vulnerabilty in this election. And the vote does not just apply to the homeland. It applies to our efforts abroad. We see only Iraq, and now the dinosaur media is turning its attention back to Afghanistan (way to go guys, but we have never taken our eyes off of Afghanistan; you are a bit late in returning). The president said much of this war would be conducted from the shadows--the very places that our enemies operate in. We will never know the fullest extent which we have fought these animals, but we are continuing it nonetheless.
The Democrats claim that to "stay the course" is an exercise in defeat. It will only make things worse (they saw as they wave the NIE, which was completely misread by them and their enablers in the press). Yet their answer alone invites disaster. Withdrawal, redeployment, whatever thay have decided to call it this week, is not the answer either. To do so would only open the floodgates from Iran and Syria, and Iraq would become even worse than what it was under Saddam. Saddam was secular, but his hatred for America made him many terrorist allies. Can we imagine what a theocratic Iraq, in the image of Iran, would be like? I shudder at the thought.
And that is just one of many thoughts that we will be taking to the polls come Novermber 7th. If you want an end to victory in the war on terror and a vulnerable nation, open to all of its enemies, then vote for Democrats. I am sure that in no time we will be reminded WHY the president took those steps to protect the nation soon enough, and the toll will likely be considerably higher than 2996. But if we want this nation kept safe, secure, and prosperous, then the only answer we have is to keep the GOP in power.
It comes down to things as simple as that. The Democrats stink at doing their job when it comes to national security. The GOP does not, and remains staunch in the face of an enemy that would rather wipe us out than try to make nice. The Democrats think they can negotiate and appease these animals. Their idea of appeasement is something so simple that nuanced Democrats cannot seem to grasp.
Convert, or die. The Democrats are still trying to find the gray area within those two choices. Fortunately for the nation, the Republicans see it in black and white, and we have presented a third option for the our enemy. Everyone fights. No one quits. And yes, we will win out over you because we are stronger than you.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home