AMONG DEMOCRATS, NATIONAL SECURITY IS OPTIONAL
By Christopher G. Adamo
Star witness for the opposition was former national security operative turned author, Richard Clarke. The contradictory nature of Clarke’s past statements, when compared to the text of his newly released book, unequivocally proves that, on one occasion or another, he was lying through his teeth. It is a logical impossibility for both stances to be truthful. Upon investigation of his comments, a demonstrable bias against Republican President George W.Bush becomes increasingly apparent.
In particular, Clarke’s demeaning characterization of the President's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, whom Clarke claimed to be befuddled by the very mention of Al-Qa'ida, loses all credibility when considered in light of Rice’s statements, made prior to her conversation with Clarke, in which she incontrovertibly displayed a thorough understanding of the terrorist organization and the threat it posed to the United States of America. Clearly, Clarke’s attempt to portray Rice as ignorant cannot possibly constitute anything other than an ad hominem attack. Similarly, those 9-11 Commission members who have since treated Clarke’s book as sacrosanct are telling much more about themselves than about President Bush’s competence in protecting the American homeland.
Rumors are already circulating to the effect that the Commission will make a determination that, in retrospect, the attacks could have been prevented, and Democrats are salivating at the prospect. Hardly a profound indictment of lapses within the Bush White House, such a finding possesses all the insight of knowing last month’s winning lottery ticket number.
If the Democratic Party leaders' partisan assessment of this situation is to be believed, the Clinton administration can be forgiven for eight years of hapless bumbling and inaction, during which time several opportunities to apprehend Osama bin Laden were ignored. Yet President Bush is to be condemned for failing to unilaterally turn the world upside down during the seven months and three weeks between his inauguration and the terrorist attacks, taking decisive action to prevent the attacks. Suffice to say that, among those making the most noise about the Commission and its entirely predictable findings, national security isn’t even on the radar screen.
In contrast, judging from the consistently hysterical reactions of Liberals, mere questioning of the absolute purity of their own motives constitutes a far greater outrage against humanity than any of the horrific deeds perpetrated by the terrorists whom their policies enabled. Unfortunately, too many Conservatives have dutifully acquiesced and, unlike the regular Liberal accusations of Bush’s Iraq policy as “all about oil,” those on the political Right refrain from suggesting that the Democrats' pursuit of a purely political agenda, at the obvious expense of the nation’s safety, is anything less than patriotic. Perhaps it would be sufficient to simply question the “patriotism” of hostile foreign entities, such as the French and North Koreans, who just happen to agree with the Democrats.
Of course, none of the 9-11 Commission’s “findings,” nor any of the baseless accusations of incompetence on the part of the Bush administration which regularly spew forth from Democratic Party spokesmen, Democratic members of Congress, and certain of the 9-11 Commission's members, constitute an “official action” by the Kerry presidential campaign. But who can doubt that Kerry may benefit from such venomous assaults against the most outstanding aspect of the Bush Presidency.
Even Bill Clinton has gotten in on the act. In a speech given last week at the “Democrat Unity Dinner,” he lamented the complete dissolution of national “unity” and “resolve” that had been so glorious in the immediate wake of 9-11. And in a ruse that only he would attempt with a straight face, he sidestepped the fact that it was his own party that labored so feverishly to undermine that sense of oneness among Americans. Neither did Clinton explain that the initial “national resolve” to deal with the perpetrators was not, in the minds of most Americans, a rallying call for appeasement and meaningless UN resolutions.
Like Spain’s Socialists and Australia’s opposition party, Democrats indicate a willingness to gamble once again with national security. Their present campaign strategy, detrimental as it may be to the nation, is apparently an approach that they consider worth the risk. Somewhere in the darkness of an obscure cave, a demonic smile is creeping across the face of Osama bin Laden.
American Government & the U.S. Presidency
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three Page Two Page One
The Middle East & the Arabs
Terrorism & U.S. Homeland Security
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * France
Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control