Deaniac Democrats

And National Security

Written by JB Williams

©2006

 

Democrats have been playing defense for too long. Over the past few months, though, something has shifted. When it comes to national security, Democrats are playing offense for a change -- and it's working.” So declares chairman Dean - “playing” being the operative word.

According to Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, “We have a fundamentally different vision for our security than the Party of Bush. “ This is a true statement. Today’s Democratic Party most certainly does have a fundamentally different vision for our nation’s security. They have a different vision of what security is, and a very different vision of how to achieve it. According to Howard Dean, Americans trust his team and their vision more than “the Party of Bush”, a not so subtle attempt to limit Republican views to those of Bush.

In his August 24th communiqué to the drooling zombie core of his fledgling party, Dean pronounced, “We're strong, we're right, and the people know it.” Now honestly, Democrats are known for many things in recent years, sex scandals, over-taxing, over-spending, over-reaching and over-stating among them. One thing they have never been known for is strong national or international security views, quite the contrary.

Yet just about all mainstream polling data indicates that the majority of Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans with their safety and security as we head into the November mid-term election cycle…or do they? Liberals and their press say their polls indicate a growing distrust in Republicans and increasing trust in Democrats by default, on the subject of national security and the war on terror. Is it true? Are the polls right?

Obviously, the majority of Americans have never been polled and won’t be until November. But are the mainstream samplings an accurate view of things to come in November? Taking into account the fact that Bush ratings jump every time terror rears its ugly head somewhere in the world, I doubt it. But what are the polls telling us?

The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll says that when it comes to the war on terror and national security, 55% approve of the Bush administration and 43% disapprove. This is hardly a glowing endorsement of the Deaniac Democrats national security plan, especially after five years of constant attacks on every Bush administration security policy decision. More specifically, concerning Iraq, only 36% approve while 61% disapprove. The rhetoric regarding Iraq has clearly won out over the reality. The problem for Republicans and Lieberman is Iraq.

Dean goes on (and on) in his communiqué, “People trust Democrats to handle our national security. In the latest CBS News and ABC News polls, more people trust Democrats to make the right decisions on Iraq. And in the latest Newsweek poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans agree that the war in Iraq has not made us safer from terrorism.”

Now I understand the need for Dean to repeat flattering statements about his Party that nobody else would ever say. The same technique worked in driving out support for American troops and their mission in Iraq. After telling average American voters that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on international terrorism every day for three years, according to most polls, 55% now believe it. So repeating an untruth until it becomes a generally accepted fact has proven to be an effective propaganda technique. It still isn’t true of course, but it doesn’t need to be to work at campaign time.

Dean points out his set of “facts”, “The President's foreign policies have failed. Iraq is sliding into civil war. Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than they were five and a half years ago. And the Taliban continues to present a threat in Afghanistan.”

I can only assume that he is referring to Bill Clinton here as “The President” whose policies failed in this statement since it was Bill Clinton who failed to confront international terrorism for eight years during countless attacks on US interests, who sold nuclear technology to China and North Korea and allowed European nations to profit from keeping the murderous Hussein regime in business in Iraq as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were dozed into mass graves all over the desert.

It can’t be Bush he is referring to because since 9/11, the Bush administration has rounded up thousands of terrorists and kept others too busy on the run to get off a follow-up attack on US soil. In most reasonable minds, that’s success. Though not finished by any means, it’s certainly a step in the right direction. It’s a far cry from the cowardly appeasement policies of Carter and Clinton.

The idea that Bush policies are a failure is based on two important premises. (1) That as long as Usama Bin Laden remains alive and at large, rounding up his entire network around the globe won’t bring success. Of course in the real world, killing Bin Laden alone before rounding up an operational majority of his network scattered around the globe would have accomplished nothing at all. It would have made for great headlines, but it would have secured nothing. Having our focus on network cells all over the world instead of one dying old man hiding in a cave makes all the sense in the world to anyone but a Deaniac.

(2) That Iraq has nothing to do with the world wide war against international terrorism networks. This notion includes ideas like, Syrian and Iranian born Al Qaeda members training and working in Iraq before 9/11 are just civil insurgents now, even as they are targeting and killing innocent Iraqi citizens on their way to the polls and the grocery store - that the Hussein regime paying $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber did not constitute a terrorist act. That the Hussein regime offering safe haven to Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network in 1996 did not demonstrate an interest in working together against common enemies in the west. And my personal favorite, the idea that the most brutal terror regime to exist in modern times, responsible for the death, dismemberment and torture of millions of innocent Iraq citizens was not a terror regime or a threat to anyone.

To believe in and trust Deaniac Democrats on the subject of national security, you have to trust their judgment in all of these areas. This is the basis upon which Democrats claim that Bush has failed in the war against international terror. Bin Laden is at large and Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time and it can’t be won.

Despite the well known fact that Iraq remains the only central front in the war against international terror, Democrats see Iraq as completely unrelated to the war on terror. Innocent Iraqi citizens, the Bush administration and most Americans disagree of course, though none of these folks participate in mainstream polls apparently.

Finally, Dean lays out his plan for national security in as much detail as he can muster. “Democrats are going to reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world.” But retreat is their plan for Iraq. Claim victory and pull out, leaving the Iraqi people in a vacuum of terror at the hands of Syrian and Iranian born terrorists referred to by Democrats as “civil insurgents”. Anyone who has ever talked directly to Iraqi citizens knows that this policy change is their greatest fear. American boots on the ground represent hope for a better future. Without those boots on the ground, hope is gone. This is the Democrats “smart plan”…

As for the Middle East, the Middle East began to spin out of control under Jimmy Carter some thirty years ago. It was left to fester and grow into an international threat with global reach under Bill Clinton. China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran became more dangerous throughout the 90’s and Bush walked into that hornets nest in January of 2001, greeted eight months into a new administration with the events of 9/11. To tell this story any other way is an outright lie.

For the first time ever, Howard Dean and Karl Rove agree on something, though not on the conclusion. “At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security,” Rove said. “Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.”

Democrats have repeatedly stated that they think the war on terror is a police matter, not a military matter. In typical liberal form, they fail even after 9/11, to see the need to fight. Yet they still believe that average Americans will trust them with their lives and the lives of their children.

America has a multitude of security intelligence agencies complete with technologically advanced tools to hunt, identify, capture or kill people who clearly aim to kill more innocent Americans. Democrats have repeatedly attacked not the terrorists, but these agencies and their efforts to secure our nation. They have repeatedly exposed our most secret security measures and aided and abetted our enemies by doing so. Yet they insist that Americans can trust them with national security on the basis that their idiot core constituency, who couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper sack, is foolish enough trust them.

While the NSA was busy intercepting intercontinental communications between terror cells that ultimately led to the arrests of a UK terror cell planning to blow up a dozen planes in route to the US, Democrats were busy chasing a partisan court ruling that would stop such intelligence operations.

While the CIA was busy interrogating captured terrorists around the globe seeking information that would help thwart the next 9/11, Democrats were busy attacking the CIA for allegedly torturing known terrorist’s committed to killing more innocent people.

Instead of asking how much we trust them with national security, a more appropriate question might be, whose side are they on in the war on terror anyway? Best I can tell - they have done more to help our enemy than they ever did to defend America and that does nothing to breed confidence in them.

Does the American majority truly trust Deaniac Democrats with national security? I’m dying to know how and on what basis.

Americans are not overly happy with Bush either. But most are looking for someone even stronger on national security, someone willing to profile the terrorists at our airports instead of strip searching little old ladies in an effort to avoid offending the terrorists, someone willing to actually close our borders until we can feel secure in the knowledge that nobody is entering this country without our approval. Two more vital security measures Democrats oppose…

I don’t know who these news agencies are polling, but it isn’t a cross section of average Americans across the country. If it was, Democrats would have laughable numbers on this topic…I’ll bet my last dollar that American voters are not as foolish come November as these polls make them appear.

Democrats are that foolish, as demonstrated by their kicking Lieberman out of their party for being too American. But you see who is leading in the general election as a new Independent now, don’t you? Even in heavily liberal Connecticut