Among Democrats, National Security is Optional ("MUST READ")

If Americans truly want to prevent a recurrence of 9-11, it is essential that they recognize the manner in which Democrats and the liberal media are willing to cloud the entire issue for the sake of partisan politics. Any lingering doubts that remained after the Democrat primaries ought to have been completely dispelled by last week's charade of a Congressional hearing.

Star witness for the opposition was former national security operative turned author, Richard Clark. The contradictory nature of Clark's past statements, when compared to the text of his newly released book, unequivocally proves that on one occasion or another, he was lying through his teeth. It is a logical impossibility for both stances to be truthful. Upon investigation of his comments, a demonstrable bias against President Bush becomes increasingly apparent.

In particular, Clark's demeaning characterization of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, whom he claimed to be befuddled by the very mention of Al Qaeda, loses all credibility when considered in light of Rice's statements, made prior to her conversation with Clark, in which she incontrovertibly displayed a thorough understanding of the terrorist organization and the threat it posed to the United States. Clearly, Clark's attempt to portray Rice as ignorant cannot possibly constitute anything other than an ad hominem attack. Similarly, those commission members who have since treated Clark's book as sacrosanct are instead telling much more about themselves than about President Bush's competence in protecting the American homeland.

Rumors are already circulating to the effect that the commission will make a determination that, in retrospect, the attacks could have been prevented, and Democrats are salivating at the prospect. Hardly a profound indictment of lapses within the Bush White House, such a finding possesses all the insight of knowing last month's winning lottery ticket number.

If the partisan Democrat assessment of this situation is to be believed, the Clinton Administration can be forgiven for eight years of hapless bumbling and inaction, during which time several opportunities to apprehend Bin Laden were ignored. Yet President Bush is to be condemned for failing to unilaterally turn the world upside down during the seven months and three weeks between his inauguration and the attacks, in order to prevent them. Suffice to say that among those making the most noise about the commission and its entirely predictable findings, national security isn't even on the radar screen.

In contrast, judging from the consistently hysterical reactions of liberals, mere questioning of the absolute purity of their own motives constitutes a far greater outrage against humanity than any of the horrific deeds perpetrated by the terrorists whom their policies enabled. Unfortunately, too many conservatives have dutifully acquiesced and, unlike the regular liberal accusations of Bush's Iraq policy as "all about oil," those on the right refrain from suggesting that the Democrat pursuit of a purely political agenda, at the obvious expense of the nation's safety, is anything less than patriotic. Perhaps it would be sufficient to simply question the "patriotism" of hostile foreign entities, such as the French and North Koreans, who just happen to agree with the Democrats.

Of course none of the commission's "findings," nor any of the baseless accusations of incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration which regularly spew forth from certain of its members, constitute an "official action" by the Kerry Campaign. But who can doubt that Kerry may benefit from such venomous assaults against the most outstanding aspect of the Bush presidency.

Even Bill Clinton has gotten in on the act. In a speech given last week at the "Democrat Unity Dinner," he lamented the complete dissolution of national "unity" and "resolve" that had been so glorious in the immediate wake of 9-11. And in a ruse that only he would attempt with a straight face, he sidestepped the fact that it was his own party that labored so feverishly to undermine that sense of oneness among Americans. Neither did Clinton explain that the initial "national resolve" to deal with the perpetrators was not, in the minds of most Americans, a rallying call for appeasement and meaningless UN resolutions.

Like Spain's socialists and Australia's opposition party, Democrats indicate a willingness to gamble once again with national security. Their present campaign strategy, detrimental as it may be to the nation, is apparently an approach that they consider worth the risk. Somewhere in the darkness of an obscure cave, a demonic smile is creeping across the face of Osama Bin Laden.

Sit Down Hillary .. You're blocking the TV

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

This is a killer article!
That scum Clinton called Bush a divider not a uniter. You know how the Clintoon's are, they always project their own actions on the opposition. They are a curse on our nation, and in fact the world.

What kind of person who was once President of this country would criticize the CIC during war like this? A low life mama's boy who needs the spotlight to breathe that is Bubba Clinton, and his Marxist wife too!!!

It is sad, really. Until now the Democrats spent most of the election avoiding the issue of 9.11 - and for very good reason. Now when they finally get interested in the subject, it's for political gain. To hear them talk these days, you'd never know the enemy was al-Qaeda. No, it's George W. Bush.

I pray the American people - those who aren't poisioned by these slimeballs' mad pursuit for power - will see through their transparent motives. We've had two Democrat presidents over the last twenty five years, and their neglect for national security has cost this nation dearly.

I get so mad thinking about it, sometimes it ruins my day.

"But who can doubt that Kerry may benefit from such venomous assaults against the most outstanding aspect of the Bush presidency?"

Hold on to your hats.

The week after Clarke's testimony Bush's poll numbers improved.

The Democrats and the media tried to portray the two events as unrelated. I believe that Bush's surge was directly related to Clarke's testimony; as soon as the improved polling results were announced Clarke was jerked off the media stage. By whom?

The media knows what's what. They just try to keep it down.

From the Old Geezer. I never hear anyone in these comments expousing the fact that HITLARY AND CLINTOON almost undoubtedly are playing behind the scenes in Iraq. They are tied "sooo closely" to Arrafat and the other dictators across the world Their ties to terrorism are well documented, Arrafat being the terrorist who visited the Clintoons in the White House more than any other "so called leader" Just a few words from one "terrorist to another" will get the word out to the other terrorists to do all in their power to bring down Bush if they want to survive as a terrorist. With his diplomaatic ties around the world, he doesn't even have to leave his office in Harlem to incite riots and demonstrations and terrorism to kill as many of our soldiers in Iraq as they can to force us out of Iraq. After all, the Clintoons are hugely responsible for the "Rent a mob" movement... so why not rent a terrorist movement. Just a word or two with Kofi Annan and other members of the UN terrorist could wreak havoc. Surely, they are not above it (not only not above it, but part of it)

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.