Democrats Still Don't Get It

“Fighting terrorism should not be the alpha and omega of America's security policy. Yes, Al-Qaeda remains a threat, but it's a plain fact that ‘terrorism’ is not a menace meriting hysteria or neglect of other national priorities;” – Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation, 2/1/05
The United States have fallen victim to what I guess we could call “nuisance attacks” for over 20 years. History, at one time, was the day's headlines, and its political impact still has an effect on today's affairs. But the history that I’m about to talk about is not the kind that one would have to open a history book and read about. Recent history is enough to prove the logic, and further base the argument that terrorism “is not a menace.”

In 1979, Iranian terrorists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held U.S. citizens hostage for a considerable amount of time. In 1983, a truck full of explosives drove into another U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Another raid of the same nature, only six months later, and this time, 241 US servicemen are killed. And then another, in 1984.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. Terrorists seize plans over Scotland, detonate an explosive, and kill 259 innocent individuals.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

Again, terrorism strikes, but this time, in America itself. In 1993, a car explodes under the World Trade center in an apparent attempt to bring them down. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on October 12th, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And finally, the events of September 11th turn on the lights, and the threat is finally seen. I would like for those on the Left who truly believe that terrorism in “not a menace” and just a “nuisance” to tell that to the families of the victims of 9/11. Tell them that their lost loved one’s life is not worth defending, because America can handle it. America can sit on its hands and take these attacks as crimes, and treat them as such. I’m sure they would love to hear from College Professors that their loved ones that died that tragic day were not innocent, but were “ignorant” “little Eichmanns.”

Now that we’ve proven that terrorism is real, and a real threat of grave importance, we should then arrange ourselves to a more productive mindset. What’s the best way to combat terrorism?

Example A: Treat terrorism as a crime, investigate attacks, and attempt to arrest these killers.
-- It seems we tried that for many years, and Clinton proved it to us that this method failed. So we can scratch that one.

Example B: Use special ops forces to assassinate or capture key leaders such as Osama Bin Laden and claim premature victory.
-- I think anyone can see that even though this has been preached (and continues to be preached) by some on the Left, it is a complete backwards and illogical point of view. Anyone can see that this method would not deal with the even more powerful element of hatred, but just one man’s hatred and dreams to see America fall. Scratch this one.

Example C: Isolate financial and military ties, engage in massive search operations to seize, and sever terrorism’s leadership, and communication.
-- This might just work. With no financial ties, terrorism is left with sleeping in caves or ditches. With massive search operations, terrorists would always be on the move, and with limited allies and a bounty on their heads, terrorists and their political affiliates have no where to hide.

If nothing were to be done, terrorism would still be coordinating, and implementing attacks on innocent civilians of the free world. If we were to continue the Clinton way of dealing with terrorism, we would still be searching for Iyman Faris, a terrorist who worked with al Qaeda to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. They failed because the Patriot Act allowed the intelligence regarding that bombing to be enforced and local police arrested him. This feeble ideology that Americans can take the heat is one the Left has implemented in this country for too long. Anything tougher than what the brilliant President Clinton had done is wrong, racist, and fascist.

posted by Tetracide_ @ 3:59 PM 0 comments

The Right’s Foreign Policy (Part I)

And it’s Modern Implementation
By Tetracide
May 9, 2005

“Peace through strength.” We’ve all heard it, in some way or another. This broad concept has been used to label conservative foreign policy for many years, most significantly demonstrated during the Cold War. Although many have heard this phrase, only a few understand it. Can they step back from present day politics and look at the 2 party system and compare and contrast the major differences? To those who can’t, I’d be more than happy to share the majority of the Right’s views on foreign policy, and provide evidence of its success in the modern world.

Forgive me, but to fully understand the implementation of foreign policy, one must understand the positions the Right hold in homeland security.

“We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America. And we have an obligation to our citizens to work together to do everything we can to protect the people.” – President George W. Bush, 6/11/02

Intelligence/Military Readiness. Now normally, discussing this subject I would branch off on a rant about how Clinton slaughtered our military for eight years, but I won’t rant, only remind. The Right truly believes that if we are to meet a challenge, we should be ready, if not more than ready to meet it. It isn’t a secluded fact that conservatives and Republicans alike are more comfortable with a substantial military. But, they are often criticized as wanting too much power over the world, the citizens of this country, and the daily operations they undertake. Of course, this is just politics, and it is not the true intent.

That intent can best be demonstrated by the events of 9/11. No my Leftist friends, this isn’t scare tactics, this is just an example. I could very well use Pearl Harbor. However, 9/11 was a reminder that a stagnant intelligence community would be devastating to national security in today’s world. Intelligence failures have become apparent in the events leading up to 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. These potent operations have had their setbacks in the intelligence arena. If you are one of those people who like to get to the source of the problem, check out this Associated Press story from March 1999. Again, just a reminder that these setbacks cost the American people, and the journey they have undertook in defending it and defeating Terrorism. Intelligence is but one factor, and military readiness is another.

Having a military on its starting marks, ready to be deployed in one swift order should be a comforting sentiment. Knowing that hundreds of thousands of men and women that have volunteered to risk their life for this country, are ready to do so, has to be a comforting sentiment. In the 50’s and 60’s the threat was a nuclear war. In the world of today, the threat is international terrorism. The confliction between the ways of approaching these risks was drastically different.

Ronald Reagan had a vision. And with that vision, he was able to see the threat of Communism, and dealt with it in a way that caused significant controversy. Instead of appeasing, or meeting agreements, Reagan stood firm against the ideology, and using the patriotism and capitalistic society of America, he crushed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. While this was a magnificent victory for America and democracy, it was a completely different time, and completely different circumstances.

Bill Clinton had a vision. He believed that after his presidency, people around the world and in America would see him as some kind of hero; that is actions around the world would be considered compassionate like Clinton made himself to be. However, Clinton’s policy stretched our forces thin, over extended military recourses, and under funded the military all together. With this deadly combination, Clinton setback our military many years during his two terms.

George W. Bush has a vision. And with that vision, he is able to see the threat of international terrorism, and is dealing with such threats in a way that have spurred significant controversy. Instead of creating an iron curtain around the U.S., pulling diplomats, dismantling foreign embassies, and making any kind of sacrifices, he has and continues to wound the terrorist network that happily killed three thousand Americans on 9/11. While our accomplishments so far have been great, there is plenty more things to be done. With a strong military, strong intelligence, and an unwavering commitment to the task, our succession, and terrorism’s defeat will be the ultimate end.

posted by Tetracide_ @ 4:59 PM 0 comments