September 11, 2006

Inconsistent


The Anniversary of 9-11 is here and unfortunately for us all, the bi partisan spirit of cooperation to fight our enemies overseas that existed in the immediate weeks following the attack has long since dissipated. But it is not conservatives, a group to which I became a member on September 11, 2001, that have changed their colors. On that fateful day, almost all Americans seemed to be on the same page of anguish, rage and then hardened resolve to fight back. I was on that page as well, newly interested in civics, geo-politics and public policy. However, in the last five years I have watched as the left leaning part of our populace at first became less enthusiastic to fight our enemies, to a point whereas now they have become a downright impediment to our effective waging of the war against those who seek to kill us. It has been pointed out that it is perhaps inappropriate to mention partisan matters on the anniversary of such a somber occasion, but because the bi partisan sprit that has been abandoned long ago by the left no longer exists, I would submit that it is in fact fittingly prescient to point out the folly of the political party that I see as an obstacle to bringing justice to the memory of those innocent American citizens lost on 9-11. It is with this in mind that I launch the following partisan attack.

Five years after the attack on our homeland, Democrats and left leaning Bush critics are as confusingly inconsistent as ever. On the one hand, left leaning critics have stated that Bush failed to anticipate the danger posed by Islamic terrorism and that furthermore, not enough has been done to protect us. However on the other hand, many of those same Bush Bashers make the argument that Bush and conservatives are exaggerating the threat of terrorism for political purposes and are guilty of the dreaded “fear mongering”.

First of all, I wonder if those who accuse Bush of fear mongering imagine that, as Michael Moore has said, “there is no terrorist threat”. Because, if a Bush critic maintains that the threat is exaggerated it seems to me that said critic then therefore does not believe that there is a serious threat in Islamic terrorism. Also, many of those on the left who believe that Republicans and Bush are exaggerating the threat of terrorism and fear mongering are themselves, the argument can be made, guilty of fear mongering. Many of the same prominent Democratic leaders who charge that Bush is exaggerating the threat of terrorism, like Chris Dodd for example, also make the argument that not enough has been done domestically to protect us and because of that, we are imminent danger.


I would ask Democrats like Dodd, which is it? Are we in imminent danger because Bush has not done enough to protect us, or has the threat of terrorism been exaggerated for political gain? If you were to ask a Democrat this, I imagine that rather than decide on either one or the other mutually exclusive argument they would, like a child, want to have it both ways. In other words, many left leaning Bush critics want to be able say that Bush has not done enough to protect us and at the same time say that Bush is exaggerating the threat of terrorism. If one feels that were are in imminent danger of another attack, then surely that same person would have to understand that there is indeed a significant threat posed by Islamic terrorism. But by making both points simultaneously, Democrats water down each argument and seem as confused, inconsistent, and childishly illogical as ever. On this anniversary of September 11th that much, at least, has not changed and political correctness and liberalism remain as two of the most significant impediments to fighting back against the ever present and insidious threat of Islamic terrorism.

7 comments:

Kent said...

The Republicans rightfully say that America and Americans are in danger because of the rise of Islamic fascism throughout the '90s.

Republicans rightfully believe that America must defend herself and her citizens by any and all means legal and necessary.

Democrats believe that George Bush is a terrorist for doing everything he has done (and continues to do) to defend America and Americans from the Islamic fascists.

Furthermore, Democrats seek to protect and defend (through words and legislation) the terrorists, the very people who are plotting to kill us.

The facts are indisputable. They oppose:

The Liberation of Iraq;
The NSA Surveilance Program;
Guantanamo Bay;
CIA Secret Prisons;
The Financial Tracking Program;
Harsh Interrogation Techniques,

among others.

And propose:

American Civil Rights for Terrorists;
Full Access to the American Judicial System for Terrorists;
Legal Representation for Terrorists;
Prosecution of High Profile Terrorists in American civil courts;
Troop Withdrawal dates in Iraq;
Cut-and-run strategies in Iraq,

among others.

It's only natural to ask, 'what side are the Dems on?'

Jaz said...

Pretty damn good run down, that I can’t disagree with.

John Boehner has been chastised for having this perfectly natural question of what side dems are on occur to him in the context of a recent exchange with reporters on the merits of military tribunals. While Tony Snow defended the comments and at the same time diplomatically distanced himself from them, other prominent conservatives, Fred Barnes for example, have rightfully defended the comments as a perfectly natural and genuine question that I agree should occur to us all.

Kent said...

Facts are facts, Dude.

young_activist said...

Yes Kent, we do oppose an unjustified war, an unconstitutional program, illegal prisons, and the use of torture. You seem to have forgotten that the war and terror is just as much as an information war as a military war and that such actions not only threaten the democracy the terrorists are trying to attack but, provide propaganda, however irrational, that the terrorists have used with great success.

We do support legal rights for those accused of crimes, regardless of what the crime is. It was just uncovered how U.S agents illegally detained and illegally extradited an innocent Canadian man to the mid east where he was tortured, we don't approve of things like that. If someone is guilty of terrorism than the government could easily convict them in any court, most of the terrorists actually brag about being one so I don't think it should be a problem if American accused of being terrorists are allowed a fair trial. Yes, we also believe that staying the course on a failed mission is stubborn stupidity.

"Cut and run"? That is simply conservatives trying to use an emotional argument for staying in Iraq because there is no reason left to justify their position.

Kent said...

'Activist,'

If you were an Iraqi would you be glad that Saddam was no longer in power?

'Unjustified war' my ass. Are you completely braindead? Have you ever read about the torture Hussein, his son's and the regime inflicted on Iraq for 30 years?

The Administration is doing nothing 'unconstitutional' and you can't prove otherwise. You can't prove that 'secret' prisons are 'illegal,' because they aren't.

Torture? As far as I'm concerned if we have to rough some terrorists up in order to prevent another 9/11, I'm all for it. I bet you'd be for it too if it saved your life.

When it comes to the subjects of terror and national security, you aren't a serious person. You don't have serious opinions. What you believe is wrong and what you stand for is both intellectually dishonest and flawed.

Here's how absurd your politics are: You are actively engaged in hating the very person who is most responsible for your safety.

Jaz said...

Slam dunk victory by Kent!

young_activist said...

Instead of calling me names perhaps you could debate the logic of my argument. Kent, even the courts have said that actions of this president have been unconstitutional.