When Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized U.S. warships to preemptively sink German submarines in 1941, he remarked, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.” Unfortunately, leaders of the Democratic Party and their candidates for Congress seem to think, like Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, that you can prevent terror attacks on U.S. soil via détente and negotiation. Containment and appeasement failed to break the stranglehold of communism, just as it is sure to fail in combating terrorism.
Until the attacks of September 11, America had adopted a criminal approach to dealing with terrorism. It was not until George W. Bush declared the attacks on New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington acts of war that we adopted an aggressive counter-terrorism policy. Security was tightened to a level such as we had never seen, intelligence agencies were investigated and reformed, and new tools were put in place to help the government perform its No. 1 job, which is to protect the American public, sometimes in ways that the public cannot know about.
The New York Times, however, saw things differently. Rooting for the Taliban and Saddam since before the War on Terror commenced, the Times placed the preservation of privacy rights over keeping planes from falling out of the sky. In December 2005, the Times made public a domestic surveillance program used to wiretap suspected terrorists without securing a warrant. Just as the hysteria over the infringement on rights of those who yearn to kill American citizens in exchange for 72 virgins in Paradise was dying down, the Times made public a program used by the intelligence community to monitor the financial dealings of terrorist organizations and their associates.
While executive editor Bill Keller of the Times led the television campaign in defense of their aiding the enemy in “the name of public interests,” the grossly deranged ACLU filed a lawsuit against the NSA for warrantless wiretapping of terror suspects, despite their inability to prove that the rights of any law-abiding American had been jeopardized by counter-terrorism activities.
Despite the thwarting of a deadly London plot to blow up U.S. airliners using liquid explosives, Judge Taylor of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, citing the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping as a blatant violation of the Constitution. In her politically charged decision, which both sides agree was devoid of any judicial rationale, Judge Taylor derailed the Bush administration. Democratic leaders soon hailed the decision as a sign that Bush’s arrogant decision to start wiretapping terrorists without a warrant had severely undermined national security and jeopardized our efforts in the war on terror. Thus, by stopping terror attacks, we lose the war. When the Flat Earth society begins to have more credibility than a political party, we have serious problems.
The New York Times, of course, was all over the decision like a cheap suit. Desperate for a Neville Chamberlain policy in the War on Terror, the Times applauded Taylor’s decision in the case of ACLU v. NSA, saying it provided a needed reality check for George Bush. While the Times claims that most of America is in favor of letting Nancy Pelosi running the House of Representatives, one must remember that if the polls did not support the editorials, the Times would have as much credibility as the National Enquirer. I defy anyone to prove that the rights of law-abiding citizens have been jeopardized by counter-terrorism operations designed to protect the nation from harm.
The now frightening rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party makes about as much sense as Hannibal Lecter with a scalpel. Observers are left with nothing but to think that the Democratic leadership is banking on the assumption that the electorate is mentally retarded. Instead of putting together a rational plan for election, the party focuses on purging party members suspected of even the slightest impurity. However, one must not forgot we’re talking about the party of inclusion here.
There is, after all, no rationale behind the rhetoric, but simply a blind, unfounded hatred of George W. Bush. This election is not about values or taxes as much as it is about national security. Democrats are still feeding Republican candidates via their childish rhetoric, which is filled with futility and ignorance about the world around them. Every Republican campaign ad should be focusing on the Democrats’ ineptness in the War on Terror.