Posted on 12/04/2003 12:33:53 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Hillary Clinton has blasted President Bush’s handling of security since September 11. She has said the homeland security plan is a “myth”, informed us that we are still “as vulnerable as we were before…September 11”, labeled the Homeland Security Department a “new bureaucracy”, and said, “…our approach to securing our nation is haphazard at best”. Last, but certainly not least, Hillary attempted to tie Bush’s proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends to our nation being unsecured. Her comments are so full of contradictions I don’t know where to start, but I have no other choice. Let’s start with homeland security being a “myth” and the fact that we are still “as vulnerable as we were before…September 11”. Authorities have reported that up to 100 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since September 11. Since the terrorist attacks we have only suffered one terrorizing attack, the Anthrax mailings, which no amount of security would have prevented. Clearly we are safer. It would be ignorant to believe our enemies have simply given up, which leads us to believe our defenses are stronger and more powerful than ever. But what if we were as vulnerable as we were before September 11? What exactly would that mean? What Hillary and her colleagues seem to have forgotten is that the Clintons were the security before September 11. Even if Bush had preserved the status quo of the pre 9/11-era in terms of national security, Hillary would be attacking Bush for maintaining the same levels of security that her and her “husband” had throughout their entire reign in the White House. If pre-9/11 security levels are open to scrutiny (which they are), Hillary must remember that those were the levels of security she and Bill left us with. Following that, she goes on to insult the American people. What Hillary calls “haphazard at best”, the American voters thought was a pretty thorough effort of securing our nation against terror. Need evidence? Recall just months ago when the voters in America made history and not only let a sitting President gains seats in both the House and Senate, but gave Republicans control of the legislative and executive branch – a triumph we haven’t seen since 1952. Though you may have thought the war on terror was coming along successfully, Hillary not only thought otherwise, but also thought you were stupid for believing so. Why else would you have made such a horrible mistake? As if it weren’t enough, Hillary denounced the move to compile existing bureaucracies into one network so that they could begin working together. According to Hillary, this creates a bureaucracy in itself. But last I recall, Democrats were awfully fond of big government bureaucracies. I just beg to ask Hillary what her proposed federalized health care system would have been had it made its way into law. Clearly it would have been everything but a downsize of government. While Bush is trying to fix the oversized and under worked bureaucracies already in place, he is receiving attacks from liberal Democrats about government efficiency and it’s immense size? Give me a break! Last but not least, she slips in an attack on removing taxes on dividends and even has the audacity to link these tax cuts to our national security. Never mind the fact that Bush has had to replenish the military budget that mysteriously diminished under the Clinton reign. Never mind that our national security was less valuable than welfare and social handouts while the Clintons had an opportunity to protect us. Never mind that it was Jimmy Carter (note: Democrat) who signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that intentionally restricted the intelligence gathering methods of the FBI and CIA while Bill Clinton (note: Democrat) expanded the law via executive order to further cripple our intelligence agencies. In fact, the last president to dramatically cut taxes, Ronald Reagan (note: Republican), also concomitantly won the Cold War. This attack is obviously despicable, however it is a rather accurate depiction of where many Democrats stand in our war on terrorism. While President Bush is beefing up our military, setting up for an offensive strike against one of the most powerful terrorists in the world, reorganizing our government structure at home, cutting taxes, and making history in elections, Democrats like Hillary are going to fight the war on terrorism by making sure we don’t get any more of our taxes back than they feel we deserve. Surely that ought to be effective. And they wonder why so many American’s sighed a deep sigh of relief following 9/11 as they came to realize a immaculate military and domestic leader, Bush – not Gore, was in the presidential office.
I have to agree with her.
Until we shore up our borders, and aggressively use profiling to rout terrorists already entrenched within our country, we're pissing in the wind.
The "shore up our borders" has nothing to do with national security. She's pandering to her minimum wage electoral base. If illegal aliens ever get the right to vote, she'll sponsor free bus service from Mexico City.
And most of it has to do with money/influence.
Which means jack-squat when we are unwilling to protect access to this country... what do you think??? That the coyotes are averse to smuggling Akmed as opposed to Juan?
A "HUGE Don't ever forget these facts" BUMP!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.