United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Liberals Unfit To Serve In a Time of War
Source:
familysecuritymatters.org
URL Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=392609
Published: Nov 6, 2006
Author: familysecuritymatters
Post Date: 2006-11-06 16:32:01 by TLBSHOW
Keywords: None
Views: 375
Comments: 7
Liberals Unfit To Serve In a Time of War Cinnamon Stillwell With the midterm elections only a day away, Americans are on the cusp of a historic turning point. The country can either continue forward under the leadership of the Republican Party or take the Democratic Party at its word and vote for change. While obvious differences exist between the two parties in terms of social and economic issues, the pivotal issue of this election is the war on Islamic terrorism. It is the great struggle of our lifetime and we owe it to future generations to choose wisely the course America takes in the years to come. Since 9/11, the Republican Party, under the leadership of the Bush administration, has pursued a policy of decisiveness, determination and at times, vision, in tackling the war on terrorism. While some of us have been critical of the party for not fully grasping the civilizational nature of the conflict, no one can accuse it of the type of willful blindness practiced everyday by Democrats and their antiwar constituency. Unlike those on the left who insist on calling it "the so-called war on terrorism," the Republican Party knows that we are at war and it has acted accordingly. In doing so, it has shown itself to be engaged with the reality of the times we live in. In contrast, the Democratic Party seems to be stuck in the pre-9/11 past. It has contributed virtually nothing to the war on terrorism except disingenuous criticism and obstructionism. Democrats have voted against or tried to impede just about every attempt on the part of the Bush administration to defeat our enemies. Whether it be the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, surveillance of suspected terrorist money wire transfers, or the wiretapping of international phone calls to terrorist suspects, the Democrats have been opposed every step of the way. And what's worse, they have contradicted their own voting record in regards to the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq by initially voting in favor only to later pull their support when times got tough. The utter contempt for the U.S. military expressed by members of the Democratic Party has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently by the party's 2004 presidential candidate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kerry’s comments indicating that those serving in Iraq are only doing so because of a lack of education caused a firestorm of righteous anger. The reason no one bought Kerry's "botched joke" explanation is that they knew the Freudian slip represented his, and by extension those of the party he represents, true views about the U.S. military. By repeatedly using them as political pawns of either the victim or babykiller variety, the Democrats have hardly supported our troops. The Democratic Party’s own defensiveness about its record on the war speaks volumes. There's a reason the Republicans are routinely accused by Democrats of "playing on the country's fears" whenever they bring up the reality of Islamic terrorism. It's because the Democrats don't believe that such fears are justified. Even after the carnage brought to our own soil on 9/11, the thirty years of bloodshed preceding it, the countless acts of barbarism an on the part of our enemies in the five years since, and the current worldwide nuclear arms race, the Democrats still insist that bringing up such issues is tantamount to fearmongering. Furthermore, when called on their record of hindrance and denial in the face of this mounting threat, Democrats become indignant and accuse Republicans of "playing politics." But how is it playing politics to simply call politicians on their own words and deeds? If the Democrats were truly confident in their approach to the war on terrorism, then such oversensitivity would be unnecessary. As it is, their behavior reeks of underconfidence. The fact that after years of catering to the leftwing of the party, the Democrats have suddenly put forward their most conservative candidates as representative of the whole, says much about the integrity or lack thereof underlying the party. Knowing that their left-leaning platform is one that a majority of Americans don't agree with and therefore will never vote for, the Democrats have put forward a bevy of moderate candidates to try and hoodwink the American public. But is there any doubt that if such candidates were elected, the Democratic Party would not revert back to leftist politics as usual? If a political party has a real platform, then it's because it believes in it, not simply because it will get it elected. But unfortunately, the Democrats seem to have abandoned all pretense of sincerity. Intent on regaining power, even to the detriment of the country's security, the Democratic Party has shown itself unfit to serve during a time of war. It represents the old order and as we saw on 9/11, the stakes are too high to go backwards. Forget the October surprises, the sex scandals and the polls, Tuesday's election really comes down to one question. Which party will best protect you and your family during a time of war? It's a no-brainer.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#5. To: TLBSHOW (#0)
Yep...RATS are NOT to be trusted with our National Security...MUD
There are no replies to Comment # 7. End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"...the Democratic Party seems to be stuck in the pre-9/11 past. It has contributed virtually nothing to the war on terrorism except disingenuous criticism and obstructionism. Democrats have voted against or tried to impede just about every attempt on the part of the Bush administration to defeat our enemies. Whether it be the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, surveillance of suspected terrorist money wire transfers, or the wiretapping of international phone calls to terrorist suspects, the Democrats have been opposed every step of the way."
#7. To: Mudboy Slim (#5)
Replies to Comment # 7.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]