Wednesday, October 29, 2008

National Security

A guest post from our friend KAR.



The more that I think about the upcoming Presidential election the more I am convinced that it is one of the most important Presidential elections in my lifetime. There are many issues that get voters worked-up; abortion, education, healthcare, immigration reform, gun control the economy, but for me the number one issue is the security of the United States.



It’s not that I don’t find the other issues important, but the idea that we can somehow let our guard down vis-à-vis the terrorist threat posed by radical Islamists is, to me, very worrisome.
Since 9/11 pundits have droned on about the inevitability of another attack on American soil, and yet it hasn’t happened. This doesn’t mean that the radical Islamists aren’t trying; it means they have been thwarted. Their failure isn’t a result of “dumb luck” or “divine providence”; it is as a result of the actions taken by this administration to prevent attacks.




George Bush has endured shameless attacks from the left and the mainstream media almost from the time the dust settled after 9/11. These people have insisted that the common sense measures taken to protect this country have somehow diminished us, and transformed us into a fascist state.



These same people insist that we should deal with the terror threat as a law enforcement matter; meaning that we should investigate and apprehend only after another attack. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive action makes perfect sense in these matters; get the bad guys before they kill thousands of innocent Americans.


Those on the left seem more concerned that a terrorist has been read his “Miranda rights “than in stopping him from committing an act of terror. They wring their hands over interrogation techniques; they worry about the conditions at the detention centers. They act as if these individuals were “garden variety” criminals, they aren’t. These terrorists would gladly give their lives in an effort to kill as many of us as possible. They recruit women and children to carry out their murderous attacks, they need to be dealt with in a manner that ensures we, and our way of life, prevail.


Think about this when you cast your vote this November, ask yourself which party and which candidates have demonstrated that they understand the threat and will act proactively to protect this country.…the answer seems pretty clear to me.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gort,

Thanks for the forum. I have enjoyed this whole process immensely.

I hope that we have a result that is clean and can be accepted by both sides, we sure don't want a repeat of the controversy of 2000.

prsent said...

KAR, I'm impressed! You should write like this more often :)

Anonymous said...

Where to start...
The Bush doctrine of preemption works if we're sure...what about when we say that someone has WMDs but ends up not having them? Is our response supposed to be "Oops. Sorry."
Shoot first ask questions later is a risky policy. No one says we don't have the right to defend ourselves.
To advocate torture (or as you all like to call it to soften it up, "interrogation techniques")however as a tactic that we should employ when often it doesn't work makes us no better that the ones we are fighting that regularly use it.
And one last word on this...
Righties love to quote founding fathers to support their positions...well chew on this Ben Franklin quote...
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Let me know what you think about it...

Anonymous said...

PJ,

Spoken (written) like a true liberal. Invoke the founding fathers to support your argument, don't make me laugh.

The founding fathers wouldn't sit around and wait for the redcoats to kick their ass, they would, and did, take action.

Franklin was referring to an attitude almost 180 degress from what you suggest.

It was directed at those who would not join the fray thinking that they could be secure without actually going against the British and enjoy limited autonomy. Those meek souls deserved neither liberty nor security.

I'm not going to get into the torture/spirited interrogation argument, except to say that we do not become them we we extract infornmation that saves lives, we overcome them.

Have a peaceful day comrade.


Kevin