Skip to comments.The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism
Posted on 02/23/2007 8:59:50 AM PST by Mount Athos
Many people assume that the Democrats' opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you've got to understand that the modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.
Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians. And Bill Clinton? Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein's attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.
That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around. Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.
1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups. When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it's simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results. Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.
2) Ronald Reagan once said that, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror. This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.
3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, "Being serious about defending America may cost you your job." After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.
4) The Democratic base doesn't take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals. It's old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism. If you have a Democratic base that isn't serious about fighting terrorism -- and it isn't -- you will have a Democratic President that isn't serious about fighting terrorism.
5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they're usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists. That's why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan. However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.
6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.
7) The Democrats are overly concerned with "international opinion," AKA "European opinion." The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don't have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point -- yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.
8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it's not advisable to reveal intelligence methods -- or because our soldiers aren't trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he'd be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.
9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we've seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.
If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.
A very good start. Thanks.
John Hawkins is a Duncan Hunter supporter, and it shows.
This is a perfect statement of fact summarized nicely in bulletts.
I will make a paper copy and carry it around when approached by anyone supporting Her Heinous or Obama.
We need to be VERY afraid should RATS take the WH in 08 and look for another 911 to occur.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Clarity" candidate ping.
10) Democrats LOATHE the military.
I don't think it shows him supporting anyone.. it shows him opposing any Democrat in the oval office.
And do you know what a Dhimmocratic President would do if we had another terrorist attack and a lot of people died?
1)Blame Bush/Republicans for creating terrorists
2)Do nothing else.
He is a Duncan Hunter supporter, and it does show, IMO.
But yes, that was not the focus of the article.
If the borders are not closed it won't matter whether which party holds the White House - a 9/11 or bigger will happen. Except that the white House holder will take his or her party down for the count.
Don't forget the dims will yell loud and whine louder for a special (dim-stacked, do-nothing) commission to investigate.
This is a great one to save for some simple arguing points when confronting liberals.
You are correct, however anytime you confront liberals with facts, they label you as a Fascist, a Nazi, a Homophobe, a Warmonger, or an inbred Bible thumper. Of course there have been time when they just stick their fingers in their ears and start chanting, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA."
Don't get me wrong, it's always worth trying, just be aware of the possible results. As Alexander Pope once said, "You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into in the first place.
How dare he question 'rat patriotism!
All points are irrefutable.
I would have to add a #10 I remember this one I was there. And this single issue turned me into a Republican. (read my profile)
HERE GOES, NUMBER 10
10) The Democrats have a long history of backing away from a fight. Along with the aforementioned Iraq Hostage Crisis, I would add Libya in the late 1970s when Qaddafi decided to extend the coastal claims of Libya forbidding the American Carrier task force from entering the Gulf of Sidra, waters the rest of the World recognized as being international waters. The Carter government had rescheduled our maneuvers to stay outside the prohibited area. True to form, Carter failed to confront Qaddaffi, even after the siege on the American embassy in Tripoli in 1979. Within months of taking office Ronald Reagan took a stand. He made it clear that American maneuvers would proceed as they always had before Carter. Anticipating confrontation the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Reagan for clear rules of engagement: What should American pilots do if attacked? Do we allow hot pursuit? Reagans answer? All the way to the hanger.
It may need to be in the mailbox of every home in America in late October of 2008 and perhaps under the windshield wiper of every car.
It should also be piped into every household nightly as a subliminal message.
You need to consider who you are addressing. Many people who appear to be liberal are unaware of the facts, too lazy to think about politics or are traditional Democrats who need to be pulled out of their rut.
The biggest problem I encounter is those who are convinced they are being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by the MSM.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can win any war against any enemy at any time. We haven't won a war since WW II, and we aren't going to win this one either. The reasons are very simple. The American people will only support a war where no one gets killed. The media will always lie to reinforce the lunatic idea that no one should get hurt in war. Finally, our government officials do not have the character necessary to stand up against the American people and the media and simply do the right thing. If you put these three things together, you get the conclusion with which I began this post--America will never win another war--ever!!! So, let's just bring our soldiers home, protect our own borders as well as possible, and pray that no enemy ever attacks us.
12) Some Democrats do not understand why we should oppose the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist nations like Iran, since we do have them and have actually used them in war. Why should we deny them to other countries? They apparently see no downside in having their own hometowns incinerated.
If Dems were in power, Bin Laden would still be running his operations with strong support from the Taliban. They're always claiming that the real war is in Afghanistan, but the Dems wouldn't have done anything. Gore would have tried to "negotiate" with the Taliban who would have laughed in his goofy face. And we would have been hit with another 9/11. No Patriot Act, no deplacing hostile Islamo-fascist governments, nothing. Just talk.
Right on the money!
Cuz their traitors for all reasonable purposes.
Yeah, I question their patriotism. THEY certainly have given enough reasons to do so.
Then look for open season to begin on Muslims AND their supporters, apologists and protectors
Liberalism is a sickness.
Is post 26 supposed to be sarcasm? If it is, I apologize for what I'm about to say. If you're serious, that is the most pathetic, defeatist anti-military bullshit I've have ever read from anyone pretending to be a "conservative".
Where the hell are all the Reagan types for 2008? We need some one with big cocoanuts to see this mess the rats are getting us into thru to victory!
Good, because I support Duncan Hunter.
Me too (relatively conservative northern San Diego county). I recently spent 12 years in the belly of the beast in the Bay Area and attended Cal in the 60's so I've had plenty of chances to encounter lib's.
There's no point in talking to many of them, but not all.
That is just WHAT MODERN DEMOCRATS DO.
In a different time in our country's history--those actions would have been given a particular name. Treason is the word that comes to mind first.
THE VERY MILITARY THAT WILL UNCONDITIONALLY PROTECT THIER SORRY ASSES WHEN THE MUZZIES COME A KNOCKIN. HOW IRONIC!
This should've done for the last 18 months or so that we have known that Iran was attacking our Military in Iraq.
Absolutely! Thanks for the ping.
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.