FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
Right Intention: Democrats & Nat'l Security

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Democrats & Nat'l Security

JunkyardBlog has a sizeable post that's worth reading.

....You may think I'm crazy to say that, but consider the Democrats' treatment of Michael Moore. He is the most odious character on the political scene today. He is a shameless liar and is openly cheering on the terrorists to kill Americans. He has made a film that is a stab in the back to our troops. And now, he's openly happy that Osama bin Laden is quoting him. Here's what he said in his final pre-election post today:

To George W.:
I know it’s gotta be rough for you right now. Hey, we’ve all been there. “You’re fired” are two horrible words when put together in that order. Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to remind the American people of your total and complete failure to capture him was a cruel trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and he’s laughing in your face. Why did you stop our Special Forces from going after him? Why did you forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11 and tell your terrorism czar to concentrate on Iraq instead?There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)

Re-read that last part. Moore not only notes the similarity between the major points in his film and the recent rhetoric of Osama bin Laden--he thinks it's just swell. As long as it all hurts Bush, it's fine with Mikey....

Not only has there been no or introspection or outrage by the left, I'm sure many in the Anyone But Bush crowd agrees with that.

...To those who think a Kerry win will force the Democrats to at last become serious about national security and the war on terrorism, I hold up Michael Moore's honored place among Democrats as proof that such ideas are foolish. Any party that embraces Moore cannot take national security or the war seriously at all. And that party had its chances both with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to gain some needed maturity in world affairs, and squandered that time. Actually, they did worse than squander it. Carter's weakness led to the fall of Iran, which led to the global jihad movement's real flowering. Clinton's weakeness allowed bin Laden to build his army even while declaring war on us. The Democrats haven't taken national security issues seriously as a party since the last days of the Johnson administration; there is absolutely no reason to think they will start just because one of their most liberal and pacifict members has become president in the midst of war....

I couldn't agree more. The Democrats are simply not credible on foreign policy or national security. They are infected with the Vietnam defeatist mindset. They don't seem to be bothered at all that they played a huge role in the mess that Vietnam became. And given their hysterical screeching about Iraq and the WOT, it looks to me as if they want to duplicate their success of 30 years ago. How on earth anyone could vote for Kerry is beyond me. The party had a chance to show it had grown up. Lieberman and Gephardt ran. I could have supported either one of those guys over Bush. They got crushed. Instead the Democrats nominated the one guy they believed could lie well enough for long enough to convince voters he would do the same things Bush is doing now, while knowing in their heart he is a anti-war, anti-military, appeasement, europhile dove who has openly sided with the enemies of the US for most of his public career. Howard Dean, the man the Democrats wanted in their hearts, was tossed out in a cynical attempt to lie to the electorate about their true intentions. This election has been an eye opener for me. I have no use for my party in this election or for the forseeable future.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home