Playing Devil's Advocate
It's time to play devil's advocate to expose the emptiness of the Democrats' 'plan' to fight Islamofascism. How aften have we heard Democrats say that Iraq is a "distraction from the real war on terror"? Or that the "the real war on terror" is in Afghanistan? The information that I've gathered blows those arguments to smithereens. Let's start with Iraq.
Let's say, God forbid, that President Bush accepts John Murtha's advice to "immediately redeploy" our troops out of Iraq. Do Murtha, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats think that (a) the Iranian mullahs will stop funneling money to Muqtada al-Sadr for the purposes of stirring up sectarian violence or that (b) Saddam's loyalists will stop craving a return to power? What happens if Saddam's loyalists take exception to the Iranian mullahs' attempts to take control of Iraq through Muqtada al-Sadr?
Isn't it predictable that the violence between Saddam's Baathists and Iran's proxies would make the current sectarian strife look mild in comparison? That's why it's of utmost importance that we stomp out the sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, not to mention training Iraqi defense forces, before we leave. Democrats know that but they're temporarily 'ignoring' that for temporary political gain. That's why Democrats' calls for leaving Iraq should scare every voter in America.
Another popular Democratic claim is that President Bush has been distracted "from the real war on terror." Considering the information in this article, isn't it impossible for Democrats to say that President Bush isn't paying attention to all potential terrorist hotspots?
It suggests that President Bush has a comprehensive plan for protecting America from terrorist attacks, a plan that's far more multi-leveled and complex than Democrats, with their willing accomplices in the Agenda Media, give him credit for.
By comparison, the Democrats' plan is (a) reneg on our commitment to a fledgling democracy right before they're able to defend themselves; (b) 'redeploy' half of our troops to Okinawa, the other half to Afghanistan, where "the real war" is; and (c) hope that the jihadists stop making inroads in France, the U.K., North Africa and South America.
That isn't a plan to protect us; that's a plan to guarantee future terrorist attacks on American soil; attacks that will be far more deadly than 9/11 ever was.
Let's examine the credibility of Democrats' claims that our policies in the Middle East, specifically waging war in Iraq, is creating new terrorists. How does that explain this 2001 article?
Bin Laden's vision is similar to Nazism, communism and fascism because, just like his predecessors, bin Laden's goal is world domination, giving the world the option of slavery, proselytization or death.
Let's also suppose, for sake of this discussion, that Democrats got their way with the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. What impact would that have had on international terrorists' plots? After all, we know that the TSP was used to connect the dots that helped foil the London plots to blow up 10 American airplanes over the Atlantic.
We also know that (a) Democrats rejoiced when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the TSP was unconstitutional and (b) Patrick Leahy and John Conyers stepped forward immediately after that to say we should pass legislation making the TSP 'legal', this despite the fact that every prior court ruling held that warrantless intercepts and searches are constitutional.
We also know that Harry Reid bragged about killing the Patriot Act and that CAIR lobbied John Conyers, John Dingell, Nancy Pelosi and others to prevent the renewal of the Patriot Act. Considering how vital everyone thinks the Patriot Act is in connecting the dots, can we afford to have people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid setting the legislative agenda as House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader respectively?
Isn't it true that Democrats, while saying that they want to work with the President on fighting terror, are the people asking the President to jump through hoop after hoop to do his Constitutionally mandated job of protecting us from attacks? Isn't it true that, if Democrats truly wanted to fight global jihadists with the same passion as President Bush, that they wouldn't make such a fuss about the NSA surveillance program? Wouldn't they have passed the Patriot Act renewal without filibustering it?
Let's not forget that Russ Feingold said that filibustering the Patriot Act renewal was a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. Hearing that, isn't it scary to think that he's likely running for the presidency?
The bottom line to this article is to point out how flawed the Democrats' 'plans', if you can call them that, are in fighting an enemy as ferocious and deadly as bin Laden's jihadists. No serious person can read this information and take Democrats seriously when it comes to fighting global jihadists.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:44 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Let's say, God forbid, that President Bush accepts John Murtha's advice to "immediately redeploy" our troops out of Iraq. Do Murtha, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats think that (a) the Iranian mullahs will stop funneling money to Muqtada al-Sadr for the purposes of stirring up sectarian violence or that (b) Saddam's loyalists will stop craving a return to power? What happens if Saddam's loyalists take exception to the Iranian mullahs' attempts to take control of Iraq through Muqtada al-Sadr?
Isn't it predictable that the violence between Saddam's Baathists and Iran's proxies would make the current sectarian strife look mild in comparison? That's why it's of utmost importance that we stomp out the sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, not to mention training Iraqi defense forces, before we leave. Democrats know that but they're temporarily 'ignoring' that for temporary political gain. That's why Democrats' calls for leaving Iraq should scare every voter in America.
Another popular Democratic claim is that President Bush has been distracted "from the real war on terror." Considering the information in this article, isn't it impossible for Democrats to say that President Bush isn't paying attention to all potential terrorist hotspots?
CAMP LEMONIER, Djibouti -- In the fall of 2002, the U.S. military set up a task force here on the Horn of Africa to kill any al Qaeda fighters seeking refuge in the region. The base was crawling with elite special-operations teams, and an unmanned Predator plane armed with Hellfire missiles sat ready on the runway. Today, the base houses 1,800 troops whose mission is to build health clinics, wells and schools in areas where Islamic extremists are active. The idea is to ease some of the suffering that leaves the locals susceptible to the radicals' message, thus bolstering local governments, which will run the new facilities and get credit for the improvements.Based on this information, isn't it impossible for Democrats to say with a straight face that President Bush doesn't have a plan to combat jihadists worldwide? Based on this information, it's perfectly obvious that Democrats are being intellectually dishonest when they say that.
Behind the shift is Gen. John Abizaid, a 55-year-old of Lebanese descent and a fluent Arabic speaker, who leads U.S. forces in the Middle East. In May, the four-star Army general visited 17 Navy Seabees, or engineers, at work designing a school. "Those 17 Seabees doing their mission out there achieve as much for us as a battalion of infantry on the ground looking for bad guys," the general said. In an interview in Iraq later, he was even blunter about the limits of U.S. firepower. "Military power can gain us time...but that is about it," he said.
It suggests that President Bush has a comprehensive plan for protecting America from terrorist attacks, a plan that's far more multi-leveled and complex than Democrats, with their willing accomplices in the Agenda Media, give him credit for.
By comparison, the Democrats' plan is (a) reneg on our commitment to a fledgling democracy right before they're able to defend themselves; (b) 'redeploy' half of our troops to Okinawa, the other half to Afghanistan, where "the real war" is; and (c) hope that the jihadists stop making inroads in France, the U.K., North Africa and South America.
That isn't a plan to protect us; that's a plan to guarantee future terrorist attacks on American soil; attacks that will be far more deadly than 9/11 ever was.
Let's examine the credibility of Democrats' claims that our policies in the Middle East, specifically waging war in Iraq, is creating new terrorists. How does that explain this 2001 article?
On 23 February 1998, a statement appeared in the London-based Arabic Newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi calling on all Muslims to kill Americans. The statement, published by Osama Bin Laden and his associates, purports to be a religious ruling, or fatwa, against the "Crusaders and Jews," whether civilian or military (see Appendix). This document is part of the evidence that links the bin Laden network to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.The ugly truth that nobody wants to face is that bin Laden's strain of Islam isn't spreading because of American policies. Rather, it's spreading because of his ideology. If America left the Middle East; if the U.S. left Israel to fend for itself, bin Laden's ideological brothers would still keep spreading their hate-filled violence across the world because their goal is world domination.
It is not by chance that this fatwa was first published in England, where its publication was protected by democratic rights and freedom of speech. This is only one more example of the cynical exploitation of the freedoms of Western civilization by radical Islamists for the advancement of their extremist goals, including the abolition of those very freedoms. In order to launch their Jihad against the "Infidels" of the West, the Islamists have established a kind of forward base among their enemies, operating under the protective umbrella of democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech and religion. The U.K. has thus become a safe haven for the launching of Jihad against the rest of the Western world.
Bin Laden's vision is similar to Nazism, communism and fascism because, just like his predecessors, bin Laden's goal is world domination, giving the world the option of slavery, proselytization or death.
Let's also suppose, for sake of this discussion, that Democrats got their way with the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. What impact would that have had on international terrorists' plots? After all, we know that the TSP was used to connect the dots that helped foil the London plots to blow up 10 American airplanes over the Atlantic.
We also know that (a) Democrats rejoiced when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the TSP was unconstitutional and (b) Patrick Leahy and John Conyers stepped forward immediately after that to say we should pass legislation making the TSP 'legal', this despite the fact that every prior court ruling held that warrantless intercepts and searches are constitutional.
We also know that Harry Reid bragged about killing the Patriot Act and that CAIR lobbied John Conyers, John Dingell, Nancy Pelosi and others to prevent the renewal of the Patriot Act. Considering how vital everyone thinks the Patriot Act is in connecting the dots, can we afford to have people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid setting the legislative agenda as House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader respectively?
Isn't it true that Democrats, while saying that they want to work with the President on fighting terror, are the people asking the President to jump through hoop after hoop to do his Constitutionally mandated job of protecting us from attacks? Isn't it true that, if Democrats truly wanted to fight global jihadists with the same passion as President Bush, that they wouldn't make such a fuss about the NSA surveillance program? Wouldn't they have passed the Patriot Act renewal without filibustering it?
Let's not forget that Russ Feingold said that filibustering the Patriot Act renewal was a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. Hearing that, isn't it scary to think that he's likely running for the presidency?
The bottom line to this article is to point out how flawed the Democrats' 'plans', if you can call them that, are in fighting an enemy as ferocious and deadly as bin Laden's jihadists. No serious person can read this information and take Democrats seriously when it comes to fighting global jihadists.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:44 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
