RE: HERE IT IS
There are only a few ways to combat terrorism:
Prevention.
Reaction.
Both.
What is absolutely clear is that the Democrats, the left, flatly reject #1, where Bush and the Republicans (and large majorities of American people) prefer #1, but also acknowledge that things may happen which require #2, so they are chiefly worried about #1 while planning for #2.
But the Democrats are entirely hostile to prevention. They don't accept any reasonable means of gathering intelligence to detect and break up plots before they happen. They scoff at the idea that we should fight the terrorists overseas to prevent them from attacking us at home. John Kerry made it clear that an American response is only appropriate after an attack has already happened and if the world at large happens to agree we should. And they of the "root causes" crowd excoriate any idea of trying to eliminate some of those root causes, such as building democracy where it doesn't exist, in the Middle East.
We need to be aggressive on the ground. I'd prefer that prevention take the form of killing the terrorists before they have a chance to kill us rather than impinging on freedoms at home. The more we do of the former, the less we have to do of the latter.
But that's not what the Democrats want. They don't want either. They are not serious about preventing terror.
The simplest confirmation of that is that not one of them has offered any alternative plan to what the Administration has done.
And, well, considering the strong impulse to look inward for blame and condemnation after September 11, their idea of "reaction" doesn't instill me with much confidence, either.
Prevention.
Reaction.
Both.
What is absolutely clear is that the Democrats, the left, flatly reject #1, where Bush and the Republicans (and large majorities of American people) prefer #1, but also acknowledge that things may happen which require #2, so they are chiefly worried about #1 while planning for #2.
But the Democrats are entirely hostile to prevention. They don't accept any reasonable means of gathering intelligence to detect and break up plots before they happen. They scoff at the idea that we should fight the terrorists overseas to prevent them from attacking us at home. John Kerry made it clear that an American response is only appropriate after an attack has already happened and if the world at large happens to agree we should. And they of the "root causes" crowd excoriate any idea of trying to eliminate some of those root causes, such as building democracy where it doesn't exist, in the Middle East.
We need to be aggressive on the ground. I'd prefer that prevention take the form of killing the terrorists before they have a chance to kill us rather than impinging on freedoms at home. The more we do of the former, the less we have to do of the latter.
But that's not what the Democrats want. They don't want either. They are not serious about preventing terror.
The simplest confirmation of that is that not one of them has offered any alternative plan to what the Administration has done.
And, well, considering the strong impulse to look inward for blame and condemnation after September 11, their idea of "reaction" doesn't instill me with much confidence, either.
posted by GumSlinger at 3:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home