Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Democrats And National Security - No Thanks

Ann Coulter has figured it out. Imagine that. Annie with an opinion. Thing is, this time she's on the money. Again. While the leaders of the American left plot the demise of our life as we know it, along with the Islamic fascists but for different end goals, Ann will from time to time point out the errors of their ways. This is a really good column and worth reading even if you don't particularly care for Ann Coulter.

It ends like this....

Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush
is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us
all safe, America. Everybody good with that? Gen. George Washington tried Major
John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and
ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an
American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret
by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal. But Democrats think
military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill
Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us! What better
way to start than with criminal trials in front of judges like John Koeltl?


Two guesses what the column is about. The one that isn't Lynne Stewart doesn't count. Anyone can make a mistake. This judge may be one of Clinton's biggest.

Just an observation.

5 Comments:

At 5:37 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

I actually rather agree, given the circumstances. The problem is that so many Americans were against the war before it started, and so many of us were saying how foolish the venture would be, that now some people feel they have to protest every facet of what has transpired.

My heart goes out to them. I was one of the ones saying that the war was a bad idea. However, I will not confuse my protests. Since we have a war on our hands, we must clean it up efficiently.

Something tells me that we aren't any safer one way or the other, though. The reason terrorism works is because it is extremely simple to carry out. And the reason terrorism continues is because it is too easy to point at America as an entity of evil. And warring with these guys isn't going to polish up our image any.

I don't really want to be proved right by seeing another attack, but I would not be surprised in the least were one to occur. Safety, after all, is an illusion.

 
At 7:01 PM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

It is an illusion to some degree. Let's keep it at a quarter behind your ear and not making the statue of liberty disappear. The smaller the illusion the better.

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

There are no degrees of illusion. It either is illusion or it is not. ;)

 
At 9:25 PM, Blogger Barb the Evil Genius said...

If you mean we can never be completely safe, yes. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't take every measure possible to keep ourselves safe.

And I don't think we're trying to polish our image, nor should we. America isn't perfect, but I definitely don't want shari'a law, and people from other countries have no darn business telling us what America should be like within her own borders anyway. Those who hate us are going to have to shut up, get over it or be killed.

 
At 8:06 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

First of all, the intent of my original post was to simply give a theory for where the democratic spew was coming from.

Seeking to safeguard ourselves is not an unworthy task. I have never said this, either. Talk about the knee-jerk conservatives here! ;) I am simply saying that toppling a dictator and fragmenting a country is probably not going to make us any safer. And when I talk about image, I mean that the terrorists see us as a hostile entity and one to be attacked more than they did before.

Has terrorism ceased? Nope. It has increased. In fact, we did them the favor of moving their targets closer to them while creating the perfect zone of chaos within which they can operate. If the idea was to make us safer in our own country, we may have done it, for the terrorists get to kill us now without elaborate travel plans!

And let us not forget that the administration's original reason for going to war with Iraq had very little to do with terrorism, so relating the two in dialogue is somewhat inane.

And WMD's? What happened to Russia's WMD's when it fell? Did some of these weapons sneak out of the country? It has been confirmed that this is very likely. It is therefore not an incredible leap of imagination to suppose that if Iraq had WMD's that the crushing of their state created similar consequences. Does losing WMD's make us safer? Ha! I think not...

Basically, the entire campaign has been one enormous mismanaged cluster fuck. And if you think we are safer for it, well, I am glad the magic show has worked to sedate you. Good night!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home