How can any democrat think they are better for this country's security than the current office?
I wanted to have a big rant explanation..but I almost think the question answers itself.
But if you need reasons why:
1. A liberal's tendancy to want to protect privacy opposed to security.
"Oh no, we can't do that! He's not a white male Christian...we cannot possibly profile him."
Yes I understand the fine line you cross when you do this...but if England hadn't have profiled a few suspicious characters, we might've had another 9-11...just not on 9-11.
2. Note there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.
If Kerry had been president, he would've completely ignored any outside threat, simply shown them his bought purple medals, thrown his botoxed chin in the air, and walked away.
Once again, we would've had a "resident" instead of a "president".
3. They're too ready to appease everyone...except the white male Christian (and white female, I shall add). They claim Islam is a peaceful religion until their tongues catch on fire...but no peaceful religion would place killing themselves in car bombs or a jet liner about to crash into one of the tallest buildings in the world above family and "world peace".
4. I'm sorry, need I go further? Really? The dems are too caught up with killing secretaries in cars, having affairs in oval offices, and bringing up watergate every chance they get to pay attention to any form of national security.
However, all this said, I believe it will be a democrat's term in office in 2008...I hope I'm wrong. I really do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
if i knew stuff about politics i would argue with you...but i am clueless...but im sure if i did know stuff about politics id be on your side just so that you wouldnt use verbal violence against me becuz i know you...and youre pretty darn good at verbal violence... ^_^
Aaron,
Democrats (to use the second-most cliched label around) have repeatedly criticized this administration's security policies. Perhaps they have some valid concerns. But they have suggested no better plan themselves, or any plan at all, to my knowledge.
Unless we can infer their plan from Clinton's drastic slashing of the intelligence personnel, The NYT's outing of the methods by which we freeze terrorists' funding, Kerry's statement that there would be no war in Lebanon had he been president.. (whatever that means..)
Racial profiling is not our greatest weapon against terrorism, but it is certainly a tool in our arsenal. Democrats do lip-service to national security, but attack each specific tool we use to achieve security.
Well said, Joseph. Well said.
Aaron, perhaps you misunderstood me.
I am not a Republican, and I do not think the current administration is without fault. My point was that if you think the current administration is so seriously flawed, you should point out what a better plan would be.
Or if not you, then you'd think the national leadership of the party that would like to be sitting where the Bush administration is now would have some sort of proposal.
As you point out, they do not.
It would be wonderful to live in a world in which torture was unnecessary. We do not. If you want information, and a prisoner of war is not willing to give this to you, you must place them in conditions that force them to be willing.
"I seriously doubt any aversion of attacks has occured by employing and measure of racial profiling."
And I seriously doubt that any significant threat has not been averted without some measure of profiling..
Sadly, it seems that as an ethnic group, Muslims have a much higher tendency to blow themselves and other people up. Ignoring this fact is not just ignorant, it's irresponsible.
I wasn't discussing the national security of Morocco, actually. I'm fairly certain that they're not referred to as the Great Satan.
If the terrorists start violating the limits on Habeas Corpus, then we've got bigger problems.. Perhaps beheading abductees falls under that category...
Remember, though, terrorists or terror suspects, for better or worse, are classified as combatants. That changes the rules on what is legal and what's not. If you disgree with this, then vote for people who will change the laws and ban the gathering of information by force from prisoners of war.
But bear in mind that most of the great failures in war (Vietnam, for example) that have occured this past century were from politicians thinking they knew how to fight wars.
Banning the army from gathering intelligence from captured terrorists is just further damaging their already limited intelligence abilities in these conflicts.
Post a Comment