Posted on 08/23/2007 10:39:56 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"We are caught in a trap. The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S., confronting and arresting the progress of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere and also in consolidating the post-Cold War European gains of NATO and the European Union, contributes to an illusion of security in a world that has seldom been such a dangerous place. People forget what alliances require."
The big question is, How do you convert this situation to a campaign strategy to assist a good conservative Republican presidential candidate for the 2008 election?
Especially if Hillary gets elected.
I have personally believed that we will not see the next major terror attack until Bush is out of office. They know how Bush will react to an attack, so they’ll wait and see how “the new President” reacts. Just been a theory of mine for a few years because I believe if they had wanted to pull off a major attack they could have/would have. So in my mind there’s no other reason we haven’t seen a major event other than that Bush is in office. Maybe I’m wrong, and if I am, and an attack happens, I think a Republican will easily be elected as President.
Not if we’re smart enough to elect Duncan Hunter...
Also, if the next President is a Democrat, the first attack will be a “freebie”. It will be easy, with the assistance of the MSM, for a Democrat President to deflect the attack back onto the Bush administration. The spin will be something along the lines of: “Bush created the conditions that provoked this attack; he left us vulnerable; he was too aggressive; he didn’t take strong enough action; etc.” (It doesn’t matter how self-contradictory the spin is — they’ll just throw everything they have at the wall.
I'm not sure I like where this logic takes us. The world would be safer had the terrorists been allowed free reign to wreak havoc on the Western World? We'd be better off with a few dozen more 911s?
The writer seems to be suggesting the world is more dangerous because Bush policies have prevented another 911 style attack on the U.S.
Look for the Chinese to test us on Taiwan if Hillary is elected.
I think what he’s saying is that Bush’s strategies have worked so well that people have come to believe that the world would be a peaceful Utopia if only the U.S. stopped it’s “aggression”. People don’t realize that, in the absence of that U.S. “aggression”, things would really get out of hand.
“The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S...”
Why should Al-Qaeda want to hit the US now that Bush is still POTUS? All they have to do is to be patient and hope some bleeding-heart liberal occupies the WH.
I think that we are safe for the time being, and so is Europe. In fact, it is probably safer to be in Europe than in the US. Al-Qaeda knows that if the US should fold, Europe will fall without a fight. Europe is only a secondary target.
I think he meant that the danger will increase because the administration likely to succeed Bush will not be willing to confront the dangers we face, but instead will try to appease.
No, not at all. The writer is simply saying that since we have not had attacks, that people (liberals) seem to forget that there is a persistent threat.
The world became much more dangerous because a certain rapist and perjuring scumbag decided that playing cigar games with interns, allowing the ChiComs to get missile technology, and not answering a growing enemy who hit us several times was business as usual for a president and leader of the Free World.
These Democrats who wish to be president are afraid to face questions from Chris Wallace or Brit Hume. They are afraid to offend any member of their vast left wing constituency. How in God’s name are they going to face Putin, Kim, Ahmadinajad, Chavez, et al?? I am truly afraid for the future.
A. A certain rapist
B. A perjuring scumbag
C. Playing cigar games with interns
D. Allowing the ChiComs to get missile technology
E. Not answering a growing enemy who hit us several times was business as usual for a president and leader of the Free World.
F. All of the above
This is a tough one Doug. I choose "F," all of the above.
This is the really sickening thing about the Democrats. Since Vietnam the Democrats haven’t learned a thing. Their Foreign Policy is all carrot and no stick.
Unless someone is in a coma, it is an easy one. Even if someone doesn’t speak English, they could figure this out.
Show me just what the Democrats brought that was new, and there you will find only crap, controversy and confusion.
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.