Skip to comments.Feeding Rats
Posted on 09/18/2001 11:09:06 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
By Gerry DalySeptember 18, 2001
Should we have gone to war after being attacked at Pearl Harbor?
If one were to ask America today this question, the response would be as near to unanimous as any could possibly ever be in a free state. Certainly! Absolutely! Without a moment of doubt.
The enemy we faced then had struck at us. They had inflicted serious damage upon our nation, and did so on our home soil (and waters). We knew then, as we know now, they would have struck again if we did not respond. We knew then, as we know now, that they would try to conquer us. We knew then, as we know now, that if they succeeded, our society would be changed forever in unacceptable ways.
Should we go to war in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks? Pearl Harbor was the last event that struck so painfully at America's core, so making comparisons is inevitable. But are such comparisons wise, or correct?
The terrorists are the enemy. They have struck at us. They have inflicted serious damage upon our nation. 5,422 missing, 200+ confirmed dead at the World Trade Center. 190+ dead at the Pentagon. The enemy killed more American citizens with their strikes than the Japanese killed in Pearl Harbor. The direct costs of this attack will be in the tens of billions. The indirect costs, as the stock markets around the globe plummet, as United States airline companies cut 20% of their flights and employees, as tourism crumbles, as in so many other ways, are incalculable. The financial impact dwarves that of Pearl Harbor.
We know this enemy will strike at us again, if we leave it be. The moment we begin to entertain thoughts that perhaps we should understand why they strike so that we can try to assuage their anger and end the threat, we instinctively understand the foolishness of the idea. Giving these men what they want and hoping for the best is what the people on three (minimum) of the four hijacked planes did. Do we want to repeat that mistake? The people on those doomed airliners had every reason to think that their decision to do what the hijacker's commanded was the smart thing to do; never before had hijackers done what these ended up doing. But now that we have seen the mindset, we understand. We cannot give in to what they want and hope for the best. If we do, they will crash and burn us.
We entertain thoughts about if responding militarily, we are giving the terrorists what they want. Our thoughts go back to the bombing of the USS Cole, and we realize that our lack of a military response did nothing to prevent this attack. We note that the terrorists made no demands; they merely struck. We realize that they were sending a message, but that the primary message was that of a rallying call, for radical Muslims worldwide to smite us, not a plea for understanding from America. Yes, the enemy wants us to go to war with them, but they will continue to escalate their provocations until they get this response. We must give them what they want. We just have to beat them.
We know that this enemy has as its goal the destruction of the United States. This is their Jihad. Their leaders preach that their religion mandates the eradication of all infidels. They intend to conquer us. They do not believe in the freedoms Americans hold dear. The Taliban right now holds several United States citizens, charged with the crime of preaching Christianity. The penalty for this crime in their society is death.
These thoughts are so obvious, that nearly all Americans understand these truths. Nearly 90% approve of the President's handling of the situation, including his promise of decisive action and his use of the term "war". About the same percentage approves of military response, even if a somewhat larger dissent is heard when asked if a long term military engagement is something with which they agree. America knows. This is war, and we must respond.
But what about that 10 percent or so, who do not agree? How can they not see the simple truth that we must respond forcefully, and we must respond as a united country?
When fighting to win a war, it is critical to stand behind the Commander in Chief. Americans have always understood this, as Americans have generally rallied behind the President in times of war. Clearly, a President that is weakened politically will be hampered from being able to forcefully command our interests. War cannot be waged from a position of weakness. Americans understand this. They understand that efforts to undermine the President weaken our ability to fight effectively. This is why Americans have historically rallied around the Commander in Chief in times of war. The jump in the President's approval ratings from the mid-50s to near 90 demonstrates this effect has occurred this time as well.
But what about those who are working to undermine the standing of the President at this time? In attempting to weaken him, they are attempting to weaken our ability to finish the job we have yet to truly start. Americans understand this, and have reacted properly when they have seen one of these rats scurrying to the surface; Representative Marty Meehan (D-Ma) found this out the hard way. Meehan's attempt at taking a partisan shot at the President in the aftermath of the crisis was responded to with such a public outcry that he had to backpedal furiously. America understands that the rats cannot be allowed to pick at the carcasses of the dead and spread their disease in this manner.
But these rats are there, just as surely that the rats that roam the sewers and back alleys of New York now are scavenging the rubble of the World Trade Center. We find their droppings in the 10 percent who oppose what the President has done and plans to do and oppose a military response. We see occasional glimpses of them when we see Meehan questioning if Air Force One was ever threatened, and when we see Representative Barbara Lee (D-Ca) vote against any response. And we can find an entire nest of these rats at Democrats.com.
"Bush's War in His Own Words: What EXACTLY Are We Fighting For?" is the questioning title of a headline article at Democrats.com. The page links to a petition for peace. There is an article making the case that America brought this attack on ourselves, and that we must try to understand the terrorists' minds, so as to assuage their anger. "Bush's Ominous and Vague Threats Weaken His Cause" is an article which attempts to undermine public confidence in President Bush's leadership. Another article is titled "Is America Being Set Up for War by the Bush Corporate Machine?". An attempt to make the same slur against the bravery of the President that Rep. Meehan was excoriated for comes in the guise of an article titled "On Day 1, Cheney & Co. Kept Bush Away from the White House".
So are these opinions, which are held by some portion of the 10% of the public which does not approve of the handling of the crisis so far and does not approve of military action truly held by those people? Or are they just tools in a bit of partisan warfare, attempts to simply weaken the President using whatever means possible in order to make political gain? Are these fellow Americans simply wrong? Or are they working to weaken our chances at winning the fight which has been brought to us, in hopes of enhancing their political futures?
Either way, the implications are damning. Either these people cannot see what is patently obvious to the American people, or they are actively working against the goals of the American people.
The attacks on the President and his handling of this crisis are not limited to opinion pieces highlighted on the site either. Flat out falsehoods are presented front page as well, as shown in an article titled "Bush's Failure to Condemn Retaliatory Attacks on Arab Americans May be Fueling an Escalating Wave of Hate Crimes". President Bush had condemned such attacks, which have been relatively few in number, right off the bat. The President said that those who intimidate or harass American Muslims "represent the worst of human kind".
If this website was simply the work of some radical fringe element of our society, it would barely be worthy of noting, and getting wrong a very material fact might be dismissed as carelessness by an amateur. But when one considers who runs and operates Democrats.com, one realizes that such an error could not occur by mistake. It was deliberate.
Democrats.com is closely affiliated with the Democrat Party through a number of relationships. As NewsMax reported in August, Democrats. com is run by a cadre of officials from the Clinton administration (such as David Lytel), the inner circle of the Gore campaign (such as Greg Simon), and the DNC (such as Stan Greenberg). These are leaders of the Democrat party.
Similarly, the site DemocraticUnderground is trying to fan the flames of division. This site is run by yet another experienced Democrat operative, David Allen. Here is how that site describes him:David Allen was introduced to website design as a Press Secretary on Capitol Hill, where he created and maintained a website for a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives. [snip] He has worked on Capitol Hill, and is a veteran of three U.S. Senate campaigns, in Delaware, Oregon, and Michigan.It is odd that Mr. Allen chooses not to name which Democrats he worked for. Perhaps they have asked him to refrain from linking himself to them publically, knowing that his website would be used to claim Bush "meanders from photo-op to photo-op with a look of perplexed bemusement plastered across his face. He seems to be saying, 'Like the rest of you, I can't believe that this is happening.'" There are distortions there as well, such as where the site claims "In a chilling statement, Bush administration spokespersons have called for 'ending states,' an unprecedented threat." A single Bush official, Paul Wolfowitz, offered his opinion that the efforts should include Nending states that sponsor terrorism". And what propaganda website, especially one put up by experienced Democrats, would be complete without a little fearmongering? "The government is attempting to curb civil liberties." Indeed.
There is further evidence that the views espoused on Democrats.com and DemocraticUnderground.com represent the thinking and efforts of the Democrat party itself. The Washington Post printed an article Sept. 18th that had many quotations from Democrat operatives taking the same party line. Sensing the public is not yet ready for partisanship, however, these Democrat operatives insisted upon anonymity. Rats need to hide in the shadows.
As the last election demonstrated, the country is pretty much divided evenly on party lines. Even if all of the 10% that stands in opposition now are Democrat voters, that means that they are outnumbered within the ranks of the Democrat voters by at least a four to one margin. Yet these views are held by the power brokers within the Democrat party, and Democrat operatives are starting to sow the seeds of discontent as best they can.
They represent, at most, 10% of our country, 20% of the Democrat voters in this country, and 30% of the registered Democrats. Yet they are the inner core of the Democrat Party. This party controls nearly half of the government in this land, yet the party is controlled by people who are out of step with 9 out of 10 Americans.
In attempting to discredit and undermine the President in a time of crisis, the Democrat Party has shown that they put partisanship and political opportunism ahead of the interests of this nation. America needs to think about the rats in the rubble of the World Trade Center. They are only occasionally visible, but they are feeding off of this tragedy, and will spread their disease if we are not careful. Similarly, the Democrat Party has been infested by diseased thinking, with these rats finding political feed in the corpses of the World Trade Center atrocity. They hope to multiply and spread, and grow ever stronger. Until the Democrats decide to clean their own house, however, their party will remain home to these vermin, and the Democrats will remain hopelessly out of step with the mainstream American.
The Republicans can aid this process along by shining the light on the rats, so that America can behold their existence, and call for their political extermination. A full page add, showing the actual headlines of the Democrats.com website, along with the links to the DNC, to the Clinton administration, and the Gore campaign would do wonders in this regard.
For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.
Hush up, newbie ;^) hehe
Admittedly there are some that fit the former category, but our stalwart democRat "leaders" all are actively working against the goals of the American people. This includes, but is not limited to, the aptly-named Dick Gephardt, for his recent suggestion of a "national ID card."