Sep 27 2006
Does Anyone Oppose A “War” On Terror? Liberals Do.
If you ask most Americans if we are at war with terrorists since 9-11 they will wisely say ‘yes’. It is clear one the largest ‘dots’ we failed to connect under Bill Clinton was Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the US. But now some lefty liberals fret that to acknowledge the true essence of the epic struggle we find ourselves in will only hand conservatives too much power. They do not want to consider our struggle a war of any kind:
The proposal now before Congress would recognize and define “unlawful enemy combatant” for the first time. That would give the fight against terrorism the legal status of an armed conflict, because it is impossible to have an illegal combatant without a conflict, lawmakers and security lawyers say.
Critics say the measure could open the way to a range of unpredictable and unintended consequences.
Is this concern one of fear we will fail to win our battle against terrorism? Of course not! The concern is Bush will succeed in the battle against terrorism and relegate liberalism to the dustbin of history – permanently. The idea liberals need Bush to fail for liberalism to succeed is understating the situation. Liberals need Bush to fail in order for liberalism to survive.
The left has made the stakes too high now. If Bush wins, and terrorism is beaten back to be replaced by democracies, the left will be permanently marked as utter failures. So now we see the truth of this election. This is clear by who we find raising the warning flags that to treat our war with terrorism as an actual war is a bad thing:
“It’s not like there’s a big neon light around it, saying, ‘This is really important,’ when it is,” said a Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to be quoted by name. “This is the kind of thing that we’re going to be talking much more about a month from now, or six months from now, saying, ‘Oh, shoot.'”
This is what frightens Democrats – Bush succeeding in protecting us and defeating our enemies. No one is worried about declaring war on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda except Liberal Democrats. They are playing Russian Roullette with our lives, hoping to tie Bush up just enough so they can win Congress and not get us killed in the process. The Reps are discussing the war on Terrorism and liberals are obsessing about the war on conservatism. Somebody has their priorities screwed up and their focus well off target. So, do we treat our war on terror as an actual war or go back to treating terrorism as a criminal career option?
The Dems claim to fame is their domestic policies. I personally don’t agree with most of what they throw on the table but it is what they perceive as their strength. If you look around the world at the countries that the Dems most admire, France, Canada etc. they are government from birth to grave care. The big thing that the countries don’t have is a military. NATO is having problems getting 20,000 fighting men to the battle field in Afghanistan. This is NATO not just one country. So the Dems want to pretend that there is no war so the country can get back to their strength. In order to have government run health care we CAN NOT HAVE A MILITARY TOO. I’m sure that they don’t want us to loose, they are in a pickle because they don’t want us to engage, period.
I’ve said before, the dems are running out of time for us to lose the war in Iraq. They don’t even have very many car bomb disasters as they used to. There is nothing they won’t do to get back to the money and power. It must stick in their craws something terrible to be the minority party. I remember how arrogant they acted when they were the majority and I can’t see that much has changed. I , long ago, thought the dems would like to destroy this country piece by piece and rebuild according to their ideology. And do you know, I think they are succeeding, certainly in our bureaucracy. I agree on neither their foreign policy nor their domestic policy. I always call them the great giveaway party. I quit their party years ago because of the way they were acting and it is much worse today. I have nothing but contempt for them.
AJ,
Good analysis of Dems.
The liberal left won’t acknowledge a War. In their “politics before country” pathology, they deliberately ignore the web of terrorist interconnections and their commonality. They willfully separate the Afghan operation from the rest and allow that that part is OK, although a “failure.”. Then they can oppose and undermine the rest.
The TRUE Right, reflected such publications as Chronicles and
American Conservative also oppose an amorphous “war on terror”
just as we oppose the “war on poverty” and all liberal and Wilsonian
liberal projects.
Indeed as Strata is quite aware, Bush made several criticisms in his
first presidential campaign against “nation-building,” which Strata now says is pivotal in the “war.” Bush obviously didn’t realize
how, many enemies our Empire had made at the time of his
since abandoned realism.
In truth, the Democrat hierarchy, for the most part does believe in fighting the war,perhaps slightly less aggresively, than the neocons.
But the US will lose the “war” as surely as it will fail to create
a “democracy” to Strata’s liking in Iraq. Militant Islam
will ultimately force America to dramatically “lower its profile”
in the Islamic world and will get help in doing so from the Latino
invasion, our truly pressing concern.
But then living in northern Viriginia, Strata can drive around
the DC metro area and see for himself America cannot even
tame its burgeoning big city crime rates, much less tame
Iraq’s insurgency while forcing the equally anti-American,
anti-democratic Shia to behave as we would wish-as Maliki’s
failure to dissemble their militias proves…
Ken, maybe Terrye was right the other day when she said she thought you were enough to the right of Pat Buchanan that you could easily be confused with a far left-fringe kook. You are definitely one confused individual. I’m going to save your post in an archive and revisit it in a couple years. I’m betting that just about everything you’ve said will have been proved wrong by then. You probably won’t be around, but I’ll get a good chuckle out of it.
Barbara, you shouldn’t have contempt for the Dems. they are not worth expending that much energy on.
Ken.
before I forget, how are things there in France?
“The TRUE Right”, why do you persist in referring to the right? you wouldn’t know anyone on the right if they were biteing you in the *ss.
“just as we oppose” We? we? you use that in the context of you’re on the right. LOL
I’m gonna help you out here because you need it so badly. The people on the Right are the ones that are OPPOSITE you. got that?
If you are not to the far left of the Loony left, you should stop carryig their water for them. got that? far left of the Loony left
“how, many enemies our Empire”
I hate to say this because I know that anyone with a 2nd grade education knows what an Empire is, but an Empire is a country that takes over other countries. If you really think we are an Empire, would you kindly enumerate all the countries we have taken over in the last, oh, say 50 years? And if you can come up with even one you are much dumber than I’m giving you credit for.
“In truth, the Democrat hierarchy, for the most part does believe in fighting the war”
Name just one, just one, of the democrat hierarchy that is in this position? You have got to be kidding.
Now this is funny:”Strata can drive around
the DC metro area and see for himself America cannot even
tame its burgeoning big city crime rates,”
Note that America is not in charge of Washington, DC. It is your crowd, the Dems and the neolibs, that are running things there.
“But the US will lose the “war†” And of course you are the head cheerleader for this position. As are all the French.
There are three groups here in America that are praying( whoops sorry, these groups don’t pray) for America to lose. they are the Dems, the neodems and the neolibs.
If it wasn’t for your crowd, working so hard to get us defeated, we would fight the war like it truly should be. Put about a half million troops over there, put a dusk to dawn curfew on everyone in troubled areas, get all the weapons out of there. But as longs as the America haters are out there, we have to use restraint to try to appease them.
No wonder you are over in France, If I hated America so much I was cheerleading for them to lose, I would be also.
Give Jacque our regards.
Ken,
• This War is “amorphous” only in that the enemy is a labyrinth of deadly organizations and operatives but still all united in their mission to destroy and control free societies.
• The Left delights in citing quotes that purport to show the Bushs reneging on a promise.
“No new taxes”- Bush I
Dems hide the fact that the Dem Congress threatened to shut down the government, forcing his acceptance.
“No more “nation building.” – Bush II
Dems ignore the fact that a removed Saddam left a vacuum that had to be filled. And the Iraqis are doing it with our help.
• Your fear of a “Latino invasion” is as paranoid as your fear of Jews. ( see the response to your comment on AJ’s “Wealth Rot” post yesterday.)
In 1950, the ratio of retired population to working population was 7:1 and it is now 5:1 and will be under 3:1 by 2050. Due to the depopulation by abortion, we need these new workers for economic well being and to keep our Social Security System afloat.
• The other thing that identifies the Buchanan types as leftists is their pessimism. That is a good marker of a leftist.
Me? Right?
Don’t tell Enforcement.
http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Secrecy-Republic/dp/0805070044
A good book on the Empire for For Enforcement.
Accepting that liberals control Washington it is because of the
white flight that has occured in every major American city.
And a majority which won’t preserve law and order in its
tradtional bastions of culture and commerce will hardly
be able to “bring democracy” to the Middle East. Nor
deserves to.
So, same difference. And ,For Enforcement, why pick on
France? No country in Western Europe approves of US occupation
of Iraq, including Tony poodle’s England.
Ken, how are things going there in France?
That link was to a book by a left of left wing fruitcake. Chalmers Johnson. He is a Ph.D professor at a Univ. How much more left wing can you be? Somebody you admire there Ken, and you like to claim you are a rightie.. Too Funny.
All I asked for was the name of one of the countries we have taken into our “empire”.
But since you didn’t come up with one, I will give you credit for not being dumber than I thought you were.
The majority in Washington that won’t preserve law and order, as you say, are of course the candy assed liberals. And no, of course that kind will never bring democracy to anyone.
It takes conservatives to have the backbone to do that. But then I wouldn’t expect you to know or understand that.
Why pick on France.
I’m not, just using it because that’s where you are and that’s obviously your philosophy.
Our best to Jacque.
Me? Right?
Don’t tell Enforcement.
Heh, heh. Well, Terrye, there’s no way to be sure, but the more I think about it and the more I study Ken’s comments, the more I’m convinced that there is indeed a place about 2 clicks to the right of Buchanan where the Left and the Right meet. And that’s right about where our friend Ken seems to be. A while back AJ made a comment about the fact that someone has to occupy the lower end of the Bell Curve. I think he must have had Ken in mind.
Retired.
It is just one big freaking circle.
Spook, I can’t tell from your comment exactly where you put Buchanan. He was formerly on the right, but now most of his positions put him pretty solidly on the left side. If that is the case, I’m pretty sure Ken would still be to the left of him.
But then when you are talking about people on the part of the Bell Curve that Ken is occupying, I’m not sure that Left and Right aren’t fairly indistinguishable.
But I certainly understand how it appears that the extremes on each end aren’t too far apart.
Spook, I can’t tell from your comment exactly where you put Buchanan.
Enforcement, that’s probably because I’m not exactly sure where to put him. If you listen to him, sometimes he seems to make perfect sense, and other times he sounds like my neighbor’s autistic, schizophrenic son.
I put Buchannan in the “who cares he is irrelevant” pile. Patty Boy is Batty.
“…not authorized to be quoted by name”
LOL…Is it just me, or does this say VOLUMES about the Democratic Party these days. The whole damn thing is unauthorized to be quoted by name. Ever see how everytime they are cornered by an interviewer and asked to supply a yes or no question, they just can’t do it?
Instead they immediately get defensive and start ragging on Bush. What are these people going to do in two more years? Why jump all over the next Republican President of course!
“Sad, pathetic, and stupid…is no way to go through life, son” – Dean Wormer (not sure if that’s a direct quote, but close enough)
Carol
I believe the Animal House quote is “fat, drunk and stupid”. If only dems could use these as excuses for their behavior. AJS is quite right in describing their fear of a successful Bush presidency. Even as experience continues to underscore the failure of leftist philosophy, dems find themselves ever more beholding to an increasingly radical base. As a result, they are unable to present any sort of coherent plan for success in Iraq or in the broader war on terror, for to do so would either alienate their very vocal (though fickle) supporters, or expose their unmistakably anti-American bent to voters. Joe Lieberman learned the hard way that being a lifelong European style socialist was not good enough for todays lefty donor/cheerleader. There is also a clear demand for the ever-so-important Quisling credential which the Senator was not prepared to certify. Therefore dems must sit out the policy sessions and offer little more than perverse attacks on those who wish to defeat our enemies. Be seen as traitors and destroy your chances with voters. Pretend to be patriots and destroy your chances with the party base. It couldn’t happen to a nicer group.
For Enforcement
If the Moslems had a fraction of the number of bases in
North America as we do in their regions, you would be calling
it worse than Empire, and rebelling aginst it.
Ken
You are a shill for AJ, right? You spout provoctive statements to cause a furor. No one could possibly be as stupid as you seem to be.
AJ
Get rid of him. You don’t need a shill. Your excellent site stands well on its own.
Barbara,
Ken serves a very useful role here – what not to be.
Foils are fun.
AJStrata