excerpt:
Of course, it will backfire! As Tom Maguire over at JustOneMinute said:
"What is the Dem message here? "Oh my gosh, that evil Bush is spying on Al Qaeda and anyone who talks to them - as Democrats, we will never do that!"
Good luck. Let us know how that works out in '06."
We have Democrats opposing the Patriot Act, which is designed to stop Al-Qaeda. Wanting to immediately pull our troops out of Iraq, where they're fighting Al-Qaeda. Getting up in arms about the President authorizing wiretaps on people who talk to Al-Qaeda. Fretting about captured members of Al-Qaeda at Gitmo and in Iraq...geez, they're practically acting like Al-Qaeda is one of their constituency groups.
On the other hand, Republicans treat Americans who don't want to be in a building when Al-Qaeda flies a plane into it like they're an important constituency group. Which group do you think is bigger? Maybe the Democrats should ask themselves that instead of continuing to live down to their reputation of being, "Blame America first," wimps who can't be trusted to defend the country because of their quasi-suicidal level of naivete about matters of national security.
1 comment:
Unfortunately, most Americans are too obsessed with soundbites and headlines to pay much attention to the substantive criticism, most of which comes from more moderate Congresscritters. It goes something like this:
In previous wars, we have seen the suspension of rights or prerogatives that were previously granted or assumed by law. After those wars, we saw those suspension as violations of fundamental civil rights, and expressly prohibited them. Warrantless searches and indefinite detentions of American citizens, along with other anti-terror tactics used over the past decade or so, can also violate rights. (In different eras, these were exemplified by habeas corpus, internment camps, and Ruby Ridge.)
During a traditional war, some suspension of the normal rules is acceptable: The war is of definite duration, so the suspension of normal rules will not become normal rules. The "War on Terror" (like the "War on Drugs", which has shared in the abuses) has no definite duration. It could and probably will continue for decades. For such a long-term proposition, we must find a suitable balance between security and liberty.
This nation was not founded on the principle that its citizens were being deprived of security -- to blithely let security concerns trump liberty is to betray our deepest institutions.
Post a Comment