Posted on 02/10/2004 6:04:13 AM PST by Warrior Nurse
DEMS DON'T GET TERROR THREAT
By NICOLE GELINAS
February 10, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's $530 billion expansion of Medicare won't kill anyone, and it can be reversed. Bush's tax cuts won't kill anyone, and they can be repealed. A $500 billion budget deficit won't kill anyone, and it can be repaid. Islamist terrorists can - and will - kill people. So voters who are unhappy with Bush's unchecked spending habit - and they have a point - had better hold their noses and come to the polls in November.
Islamist terrorists remain the clearest and most present danger to America. Yet the Democrats who represent themselves as the foreign-policy experts of the pack would turn the clock on national security back to the middle of the Clinton era.
Frontrunner Sen. John Kerry had this to say recently: "The War on Terror is . . . is occasionally military, and it will be . . . for a long time. . . . But it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world - the very thing this administration is worst at."
No one doubts that we must improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities. But 9/11 proved that international terrorism can't be halted with aggressive law enforcement.
Those who bombed the Trade Center in '93 are rotting in prison; that attack ended in a law-enforcement victory for America. But the Twin Towers are no more; throwing Ramzi Yousef in jail was no deterrent. Law enforcement is no answer when those who hate us will die to kill us.
Can the FBI help? Sure. But daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime. Libya's Moammar Khadafy isn't dismantling his weapons programs because he's afraid of the FBI - he just doesn't want to find himself at the bottom of a spider hole in 2005.
"And, most importantly," Kerry continued, "the War on Terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations." This root-causes stuff isn't "most important" - it's a footnote to the real war.
It's fine, and even useful, for us to examine the motives and living conditions of our enemies. But we mustn't confuse this with self-defense.
Mohamed Atta had plenty of clean water and fresh food in Florida. Yasser Arafat has stashed hundreds of millions of dollars abroad while his subjects remain poor. It's a noble sentiment for us to want to better the lives of innocents abroad who have been victimized by their own leaders. But that's charity, not security.
Gen. Wesley Clark offers no alternative to Kerry's approach - only excuses.
"We always recognized that there was a threat of terrorism," Clark admonished Tom Brokaw when asked about the failures of the Clinton administration. "And we began in 1996, with Khobar Towers, to really work on the . . . anti-terrorism measures. . . . In '98, when Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa against the United States, there should have been, at that point, measures to go and get Osama bin Laden. I'm told that there were such measures that were attempted to be undertaken. Why they didn't work . . . I don't know."
Message: Don't blame President Clinton - he tried his best.
The Dems are focused on process, not results. Clinton knew bin Laden was a threat, and he attempted to "undertake measures." That bin Laden plotted to kill 3,000 Americans during the waning years of his term is irrelevant. Since Clinton didn't run afoul of multilateral institutions, he gets a pass.
Bush has toppled two totalitarian regimes, rescued millions from Saddam and killed or detained thousands of terrorists. But he's still an ideologue and an international rogue, so, the Dems say, he has to go.
What Bush has accomplished since 9/11 was not pre-ordained. After that day, lots of folks were wringing their hands, saying things would never be the same - that Americans, like Israelis, would just have to live with some level of terrorism.
Bush said no.
Bush invited legitimate criticism when he paired his geopolitical achievements abroad with his effort to stop steroid abuse at home in his State of the Union speech. He shouldn't stoop to the programmatic level of the candidates - because they can't rise to his.
That's because John Kerry told us that the threat of terrorism is overblown.
bin Laden plotted to kill 50,000 + Americans.
It was a miracle that only 3,000 died that day!!
Islamist terrorists remain the clearest and most present danger to America. Yet the Democrats who represent themselves as the foreign-policy experts of the pack would turn the clock on national security back to the middle of the Clinton era.
Ok. Work with me on this. Will there ever be a time when terror is not a threat? Seems to me the answer is no. The war on terror is a permanent war, isn't it? Will there ever come a day when we say "OK, let's let our guard down now. It's safe?" I don't think so.
Ok then. If you accept that premise, then what are we to make of the first paragraph? Does a strong stance on terrorism now mean you can spend us into oblivion, cuz it "won't kill you?" And meanwhile, we're blaming the Dims for being weak on terror, but 9-11 happened with the GOP in control of all 3 branches. Go figure.
Does he? I haven't really paid any attention to him. I also question the connection of Iraq to terrorism. Seems like a nation-building, remake the map, idealistic adventure to me. A sideshow. Not sure I understand or agree with this sort of approach. Maybe by the time Novemeber rolls around, it will have been amply explained. I watched the President, but he did not convince me.
Frontrunner Sen. John Kerry had this to say recently: "The War on Terror is . . . is occasionally military, and it will be . . . for a long time. . . . But it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."This sounds like a return to the old "Let them blow up an office building or embassy or two; we'll impanel a grand jury and issue subpoenas -- that'll show them" way of doing things.
Let me ask you this: In terms of Al Queda--they are the primary terror threat, no?--how is what Kerry said wrong? Isn't the hunt for Al Queda a combination of military, intelligence, and law-enforcement? Isn't that what homeland security is? And don't we need the cooperation of countries like Pakistan, or Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075040/posts
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.