I often have mixed feelings about a lot of what Ann Coulter writes, but this article's main thrust is dead on. Here are some excerpts:
You may hate Coulter, but she is right here. Let's do a quick comparison.
How many major terrorist attacks did we see during the Clinton administration (1992-2000)?
1. 1993: World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000
2. 1995: bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel
3. 1996: Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel
4. 1998: bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000
5. 2000: bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors
President Clinton blustered and threatened, but never retaliated. Instead, he adopted the law enforcement philosophy for fighting terrorism. While it's true that several terrorists have since been caught and thrown into prison for these attacks, I should also note here that Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden twice by Sudan, but Clinton refused to take custody because there was 'not enough evidence' to hold him. Regardless, not a single American life was saved by Clinton's actions since those actions only took place after the attacks. Barack Obama has pledged to adopt the same policy as Clinton. His compassion for terrorists is evident (emphasis mine):
Am I the only one who thinks he feels worse about how he expects Muslims will be treated in retaliation than about the victims who were actually killed by Muslims on 9/11?
But I digress.
Now, how many major attacks have we seen since 9/11, just eight months after Bush took office? None, zero, nada, zip, zilch.
This is because President Bush adopted a military philosophy for fighting terrorism. He took the fight overseas to where the terrorists were. Even the terrorists agreed that 'Bush's War' was their primary battle against the U.S. Tens of thousands of terrorists were attracted to the battle zone, taking them away from places they could kill Americans. Tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured, removing their potential for ever killing Americans again.
Now, I ask you: how silly and backwards is it to hear Democrats suggest that we're no safer now than before 9/11, or in even more danger than ever before?
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
Coulter is right. Bush has withstood withering attacks and vicious slanders from the Left for the past seven years, but history has proven him right. Anyone who thinks the Obama-Biden ticket will be more effective than the McCain-Palin ticket at protecting Americans from terrorism needs to seriously re-evalute their definition of protection.
This election will turn on several major issues, and one of them is national security. If you're leaning toward Obama, you need to seriously ask yourself if you think that Obama -- who opposed retaliation for 9/11 and promises more of the policies that did nothing to prevent five major terrorist attacks -- will protect this country in the event of another major attack. Think carefully, because your answer could very well come home to your own doorstep, as the terrorism expert who accurately predicted 9/11 is now saying that a WMD attack on the U.S. is 'inevitable' in the next 3-5 years.
There's my two cents.
As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure project issues, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold.
Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.
If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings ... he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.
A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003.
There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.
As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.
For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies.
George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.
That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.
OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.
Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.
If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings ... he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.
A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003.
There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.
As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.
For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies.
George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.
That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.
OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.
You may hate Coulter, but she is right here. Let's do a quick comparison.
How many major terrorist attacks did we see during the Clinton administration (1992-2000)?
1. 1993: World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000
2. 1995: bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel
3. 1996: Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel
4. 1998: bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000
5. 2000: bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors
President Clinton blustered and threatened, but never retaliated. Instead, he adopted the law enforcement philosophy for fighting terrorism. While it's true that several terrorists have since been caught and thrown into prison for these attacks, I should also note here that Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden twice by Sudan, but Clinton refused to take custody because there was 'not enough evidence' to hold him. Regardless, not a single American life was saved by Clinton's actions since those actions only took place after the attacks. Barack Obama has pledged to adopt the same policy as Clinton. His compassion for terrorists is evident (emphasis mine):
Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.
Am I the only one who thinks he feels worse about how he expects Muslims will be treated in retaliation than about the victims who were actually killed by Muslims on 9/11?
But I digress.
Now, how many major attacks have we seen since 9/11, just eight months after Bush took office? None, zero, nada, zip, zilch.
This is because President Bush adopted a military philosophy for fighting terrorism. He took the fight overseas to where the terrorists were. Even the terrorists agreed that 'Bush's War' was their primary battle against the U.S. Tens of thousands of terrorists were attracted to the battle zone, taking them away from places they could kill Americans. Tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured, removing their potential for ever killing Americans again.
Now, I ask you: how silly and backwards is it to hear Democrats suggest that we're no safer now than before 9/11, or in even more danger than ever before?
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
Coulter is right. Bush has withstood withering attacks and vicious slanders from the Left for the past seven years, but history has proven him right. Anyone who thinks the Obama-Biden ticket will be more effective than the McCain-Palin ticket at protecting Americans from terrorism needs to seriously re-evalute their definition of protection.
This election will turn on several major issues, and one of them is national security. If you're leaning toward Obama, you need to seriously ask yourself if you think that Obama -- who opposed retaliation for 9/11 and promises more of the policies that did nothing to prevent five major terrorist attacks -- will protect this country in the event of another major attack. Think carefully, because your answer could very well come home to your own doorstep, as the terrorism expert who accurately predicted 9/11 is now saying that a WMD attack on the U.S. is 'inevitable' in the next 3-5 years.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
Just thought you might like to read some of the other interesting points in the source you linked to regarding the inevitable attack (to find this, go to the link you provided, then go to the bottom of the article and click "source," which will take you to the underlying article where this was written):
"Case in point: In deposing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and depriving al-Qaida of a safe haven there, the United States struck a major blow against the terrorist movement as it existed five years ago. Yet by failing to follow up on that success effectively, the report concludes, we have squandered much of the benefit that should have been gained from that first step in the counterterrorist war.
The Iraq War has supplied al-Qaida and its sympathizers with a cause around which to rally their existing forces and recruit new ones, the report says. As a result, the terrorist movement is now growing stronger, the report reveals.
Up to 30,000 foreign fighters are believed to have gravitated toward Iraq, where they are now gaining contacts and experience that will serve them well in future campaigns against the U.S. and its allies.
In this, Iraq is now serving the function that Afghanistan provided in the 1980s. The war in Iraq is building a skilled and disciplined terrorist cadre that will fan out across the world."
Yeah, that source article is really interesting. It's got so much meat in it that I think I might post on that one alone sometime.
This guy really appears to know his stuff, and that should scare sane people a LOT! Of course, not all of his predictions will turn out to be accurate, but if even a few of them do, it's bad news.
If you're thinking I'll disagree with you on the fact that the War on Terror has been conducted perfectly, it ain't going to happen. There has been far too much political control to be completely effective, and I credit our troops even more because of their incredible achievements despite that control.
While it's too bad we didn't have Petraeus' strategy from the beginning, that's simply the nature of war. You come up with the best plan you've got, then do your best to implement it, and hope it works. If it doesn't, you change course. I would guess that very few wars are won with the strategy that was originally proposed.
I think the key thing to keep in mind, though, is that those terrorists have been drawn to Iraq. The more our military draws their fire (and subsequently takes them out), the less opportunity the terrorists have to attack civilian targets. That's how bush is using the military, and that's what the military is for. In that respect alone, Iraq has been a good thing for America. If you add the removal of Hussein and the freedom of the Iraqi people, I don't think it's difficult to say we did the right thing, but I know not everyone agrees with that.
It does appear that though Iraq is largely clean of active combatants (this guy's number of 30,000 is at odds with every other report I've seen, including the incident reports of troop deaths, so I'm not sure what's up with that), the bulk of that force has relocated to Afghanistan, and that's where we need to focus our efforts at this point. From what I've seen and read, our single biggest mistake was that we trusted local Afghan warlords to cordon off those mountains when we first went after bin Laden. If we had put our own boots on the ground, we may have gotten him right away. Too bad we'll never know.
Bottom line: one cannot deny the fact that we haven't seen a major attack since 9/11. We can also logically assume that we will be hit again at some point. Radical Islam will not go away, and as Bush has said, we have to get right 100% of the time, but they only have to get lucky once. While the majority of victories may be on our side, it is almost inevitable that one time will happen, especially given that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world (partly due to birth rates, and partly due to other factors, but that's another conversation). I think the thing we need to deal with is how best to continue minimizing that one time possibility. Would Obama's plan of negotiating do it, or would McCain's plan of aggressive action do it? I believe that the current candidates' plans very closely mirror the plans of the last two administrations, and only one of them has prevented attacks for seven years. That was the point of this post.
If you haven't checked out my posts and recommendations about Joel Rosenberg's stuff, I'd highly recommend it. When putting all of this stuff into the Biblical context, it really shapes world events in a different way. For example, the Bible is quite clear that the U.S. does not play a significant factor in what will likely be the next major world war (pitting Israel against Iran/Russia/Arab nations). The question that bothers me is: why not? Do we get nuked into oblivion? Are we simply paralyzed with political divisions, and thus choose not to participate? Do we experience a massive economic crash and fall from global leadership? I could see all three possibilities, and I have no doubt that there are many more. That's the part we do not know, and the part that truly concerns me.
I like Rosenberg for his ability to identify these sorts of things, and I would guess you might appreciate it, too.
Anyway, I've babbled long enough. Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment