The Right State

There is news coming out of Washington that the Bush Administration may be leaning towards a Cold War era style of deterrence to ward off possible terrorist attacks by terrorists.  Since this is coming from the New York Times, I hope this news is wrong, anything seems to be possible.

The idea is to use police and others to keep the terrorists off balance.  This would dissuade them from carrying out attacks in this country.  Does this sound familiar?  Maybe like the Clinton stance against terrorism in the 1990s.  I did not work then and it will not work now.  In this age of political correctness run amok, how would the police keep the terrorists off balance when they can not use profiling? 

In New York City, as many as 100 police officers in squad cars from every precinct converge twice daily at randomly selected times and at randomly selected sites, like Times Square or the financial district, to rehearse their response to a terrorist attack. City police officials say the operations are believed to be a crucial tactic to keep extremists guessing as to when and where a large police presence may materialize at any hour.

This is another way of saying New York will wait until after another attack to do anything.  So we turn back the clock to the 1990s and wait for another 3000+ people to die before we become serious about fighting terrorism.  Even officials acknowledge that deterrence “represents a second-best solution” to fighting the terrorists, the first being to kill or capture them. 

Another ploy being discussed by the military is “countermessaging.”  The idea is to use the internet and the terrorists’ own chat room and videos against them in an effort to turn the people against the jihadists.  This process is too slow.  Changing minds is a lengthy process.  In the long run this might work, but in conjunction with killing the terrorists wherever they may be found.

I hope the idea of deterrence is just another ploy by the liberal New York Times to again bash the Bush Administration, though I doubt it.  Killing terrorists works, trying to understand them kills Americans.  I just hope the administration understands this simple fact.

Tags: Terrorism by Chuck
No Comments »

What is it about leftists-Democrats that they hate America so much?  Is it that we are a free and open society? Maybe.  Or is it that the hate-America group does not seem to be able to significantly influence political opinion?  Again, maybe.  Whatever the case may be, they still cling to the same old tried and failed beliefs: America is an imperialistic nation, America is in Iraq for the oil, etc.  The same old mantra: America and freedom and democracy are all wrong while the terrorists, who would not hesitate for an instant to chop off any of our heads, are the good guys.

How did the world devolve into this situation where the good guys are bad, and the bad guys are good; where the only country willing to spend their precious blood for others is evil, while those who would turn the entire world to Islam under duress are good?

Some of these delusional people are like Stan Goff writing at the Huffington Post who denounced the Democrats for their wobbly stance on Iraq.  According to Wikipedia, Mr. Goff served his country in the Army with distinction for several years.  Even though the entry describes Goff’s turn to the left during the end of the Reagan years, apparently the most pronounced turn came during the Clinton years.  That is indeed interesting, because my sharp turn to the right also came during the Clinton years.  Think about it, Bill Clinton made a mockery of our country and our military.  This goof of a President did indeed use the military as a testing group for socialism.  This narcissistic fool of a President used the military as a political tool.  And this idiot of a President had a hand in killing 18 good soldiers in Mogadishu by denying them the tools they needed to protect themselves.  And instead of blaming Bill Clinton for these serious deficiencies, Goff blames America.  While I salute Stan Goff for his service to his country, I pity him.

Our country was attacked on 9/11 by people who want to kill us.  Over three thousand civilians died as a result of those attacks against our country.  It did and does not matter what God we worship (if at all), whether male or female, or whether we are black, white, brown, or yellow, these extremists (not fundamentalists) want to kill us because of our freedoms.  The terrorists, whether al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, are the bad guys; not the United States.

In families, a death can either unite them ever more closely together or it will break them apart.  Our country is no different.  We can stand together or let our differences break us apart and make us weak before our enemies.

Despite what Goff says, I believe this is a great country.  After wars, we ask for only enough space to bury our dead.  If that is imperialism—so be it.  We promote democracy around the world allow nations to chose for themselves how they will be governed.  If that is imperialism—so be it.  As for the claim of the US staking a claim to Iraqi oil is concerned, some charges are so ludicrous that they refute themselves.

It is indeed a shame Goff does not see the good in this country.  With his hate-colored glasses, everyone who is good is colored bad, but the evil simply disappears.  What a dreadful end to such a successful military career.  I pity him.

Tags: Terrorism, Moonbats, Iraq by Chuck
No Comments »

If there was any doubt on which side the Associated Press stands when it comes to protecting America from those who would kill us if they could, the AP squashes those doubts with their renewed calls for the end of ‘domestic spying.’

Federal agents continue to eavesdrop on Americans’ electronic communications without warrants a year after President Bush confirmed the practice, and experts say a new Congress’ efforts to limit the program could trigger a constitutional showdown. (emphasis added by TRS)

The AP along with the Democratic Party and the ACLU are calling for the end of the ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program.’  This begs the question of why—why are these liberal groups so against a program which has proven to be effective in protecting the United States from terrorist attacks?  The President, the Vice President, and others including the National Security Advisor all say that the only calls listened to are those which involve known terrorists ‘outside’ the United States.

On Dec. 17, 2005, Bush publicly acknowledged for the first time he had authorized the NSA to monitor, without approval from a judge, phone calls and e-mails that come into or originate in the U.S. and involve people the government suspects of having terrorist links.

President Bush has already stated he has no intention whatsoever of ending an incredibly useful tool as the surveillance program, especially since the Republican controlled Congress refused to place limits on its use.  This is sure to change with a new Democratically controlled Congress who takes control in January.

The next move falls to the Democrats who take control in January and are considering a proposal to demands Bush get warrants and others lengthening the time between surveillance and when a warrant must be obtained.

A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader from Nevada, said the eavesdropping issue “is something he expects to tackle early next year.”

“He doesn’t believe in giving the president a blank check to listen to the phone conversations of millions of Americans,” spokesman Jim Manley said.

Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who will become House speaker, said eavesdropping legislation was under consideration and hearings on the topic were likely early next year.

Leave it to the Democrats to leave America weak and defenseless against those who would kill us.  There was never a time during the tenure of Bill Clinton when the US went through five years with out being attacked.  Is this where the Democrats want to take us—a time when the US was constantly under attack by Muslim extremists?

Governmental intrusions into the private lives of ordinary Americans are a real and scary thought.  Yet the same administration which is known to have trounced the rights of Americans, abused their power, and skirted the law on multiple occasions remains a hero to the Democratic Party.  The co-Presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton will forever remain a dark blot on the American Presidency.  The multiple –gates including travel gate, file gate, whitewater, China, and many, many others all point to an abuse of power by the Clintons.  Some in the former administration say Clinton used ‘domestic spying’ as well.  And yet when President Bush attempts to carry out his rightful duty to protect America from all enemies, the Democrats cry foul claiming an abuse of presidential power.  This still does not answer the question why the AP, the Democratic Party, and the ACLU want to end such an effective program against terrorism.  That answer is not so simple.

The AP is not interested in protecting America.  Neither is much of the Democratic Party.  The ACLU has never been interested in protecting and defending America.  All three groups are calling for the impeachment of President Bush on the grounds of the abuse of power.  I too would echo these calls for the impeachment of President Bush if he did not use every tool in the US arsenal to protect America from further terrorist attacks, and this includes the use of the foreign surveillance program.

I just wish the AP, the Democratic Party, and the ACLU would join in and fight for the protection of America.  This war is a war against all Americans, not just George W. Bush.  Fortunately for the United States, we have a president who places the security of this country over the short-term shallow ambitions of the Democratic Party, the ACLU and the AP.

Tags: Terrorism, Democrats, Bias by Chuck
No Comments »

I have stated previously that it is not the troops who have lost touch with society, but the left who have lost touch with our troops.  BlackFive has a post where he shows the same thing.  This is not purely a US phenomenon, England is also having it’s share of lefty moonbats who see their soldiers as instigators in this war on terror.

Two Royal Marines were refused entry to a bar just hours after a colleague’s funeral because they were in uniform.

The two servicemen went for a drink at the Walkabout bar in Liverpool city centre following the funeral of Corporal Ben Nowak at the city’s Anglican cathedral.

Then comes this jewel of a quote from bar owners:

A spokesman for Walkabout said: “As a responsible bar operator, we have a strict policy of refusing entry to anyone believed to be aggressive. (snip)

The spokesman offered his condolences to Cpl Nowak’s friends, comrades and family and offered the group who were turned away a complimentary lunch. He stressed the soldiers must not be in uniform. (emphasis added by TRS)

Apparently the soldiers appeared to be aggressive because they were in ‘uniform.’  It makes me wonder if the bouncers would deny entry by a Muslim wearing a traditional Islamic attire.  Probably not.  All is not lost, many patrons in the bar were outraged by the bar’s actions.  And according to the bar owners, sales have plummeted since this news came to light.

It is amazing to see what the left thinks of our brave men and women risking their lives to serve their country both in the United States and in England.  Whether it is John Murtha who says our troops are murderers, Newsweek who publishes fake stories about flushing the Koran, Lawrence O’Donnell saying that our troops are not in touch with the rest of society, Charlie Rangel who blatantly states that our troops are not patriotic but just have no other options other than the military, or a bar in Liverpool England who denies entry for their heroes; the left has not only lost touch with our soldiers, they are abandoning them in mass.  They would trust AK-47 carrying Islamo-fascists before they would our heroes.  And that is truly sad.

Hat tip: In Training through BlackFive

Tags: Terrorism, Heroes, Moonbats by Chuck
No Comments »

For years, the New York Times has claimed its First Amendment right under the Constitution to print whatever it wanted.  They leaked secret military planning for Afghanistan, selective leaking of the NIE, and the leaking of the financial data mining  of terrorists.  All of these were highly classified secrets the New York Times felt the world had a right to know.  The defense the Times has been using may be starting to come unraveled as the courts see a ‘compelling interest’ on the part of federal prosecutors to know who leaked a planned raid on two Muslim charities.

The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the New York Times and two of its reporters from a prosecutor’s probe into who leaked word of planned raids on two Muslim charities five years ago.

The decision clears the way for federal prosecutors to review the phone records of the two reporters for several weeks in the fall of 2001. The prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, says the records will help point to the source of the leak.

The New York Times maintains it has a 1st Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources. Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s lawyer, said, “There has been no claim of wrongdoing against the Times reporters. The only thing at issue here is a leak investigation in which the government seeks to obtain information on who spoke to the journalists.”

Two years ago, lawyers for the newspaper went before a federal judge in New York and won an order that barred the prosecutor from examining the phone records.

But in August, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order in a 2-1 decision. The prosecutor has a “compelling interest” in learning who tipped off the reporters to the planned raids, thereby “endangering federal agents” and permitting the “targets to spirit away incriminating information,” said Judge Ralph K. Winter in the appeals court opinion.

“We see no danger to the free press in so holding,” he added. “Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes or searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential … to journalism.”

The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that the news media has a 1st Amendment right to protect its confidential sources. On Monday, the justices turned down an emergency plea from the Times in a one-line order.

The question is, do the investigations stop here?  The Times have been involved in so many leaks which have harmed America’s war on terror. These leaks were not done because of the people’s right to know or the First Amendment rights, but they were leaked to harm a sitting president they did not like.

Now, its time to pay the piper.   Hopefully, the indictment of Judith Miller will be but the first of many who have knowingly printed classified documents. This should be the first of many salvos across the bow of the MSM who feel it is their duty to determine what needs to be classified and what does not, who is an enemy and who is not, who is a terrorist and who is not.

And while I am involved in wishful thinking, it would be nice if the media were on the side of America and her troops, at least every once in a while.  Unfortunately this may never take place.  This is going to be a long war against people who want to kill us and our way of life.  The New York Times seems to have chosen sides and now they are paying for it.

Tags: Terrorism, Bias, War by Chuck
No Comments »

What is the US to do with Iran?  We have a two fold problem with the Iranians: continued interference in Iraq and their insistence on building a nuclear program.  The Iranians have been thumbing their collective noses at the world community for years.

In Iraq, using proxies, the Iranians are arming terrorists for the purpose of killing American and British troops is well documented.  Even more alarming is Tehran’s insidious link with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group by trying to move al-Queda in a direction that is beneficial to them and harmful to the west.

But intelligence officials have been most alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade al-Qa’eda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership.

The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt’s special forces, to be the organisation’s number three.

Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden’s head of security, and was named on the FBI’s 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Alarm over al-Qa’eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.

A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Then there is Tehran’s threat to finish its nuclear program.  Despite warnings from the UN not to continue their enrichment process, Iran has rejected all efforts to defuse the situation.

“The Iranian nation is about to take its final step in the nuclear issue,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

The president has previously said Iran would celebrate its nuclear achievements by the end of the Iranian year, which falls in March 2007.

Iran now operates two experimental chains of 164 centrifuges, which can be used to make fuel for power plants or material for warheads

They continue to insist their collection of centrifuges is for peaceful nuclear energy, but the IAEA document many problems with the Iranian nuclear program, like providing access to records and explaining how they acquired highly enriched uranium.

In its latest report on the Iranian nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, said Tehran is moving ahead with its efforts to purify uranium while refusing to answer basic questions about its atomic program.

For instance, the report said Iran has failed to provide full access to records needed to confirm its claims in June of having enriched uranium to a level of 5 percent, which is suitable for reactors.

The report also said inspectors have made no progress in resolving the origin of previously discovered traces of highly enriched uranium, which can fuel atomic bombs. In September, the agency disclosed the discovery of the particles on a container from a waste storage site at Karaj, not far from Tehran, but withheld judgment about where the material came from and whether it could be linked to a secret nuclear-weapons program.

Finally, the report said inspectors recently have found traces of yet another unexplained particle — plutonium — on samples from containers at Karaj and is assessing a response from Tehran about its origin. Plutonium, like uranium, can fuel nuclear weapons.  (emphasis added by TRS)

The US can do nothing diplomatically including the placing of sanctions on the rogue regime without the help of the other members of the UN Security Council.  Both Russia and China have been reluctant to provide more than meaningless words.  The problems Iran is giving the rest of the world abounds.  Iran continues to supply the terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers.  Iran is also believed to be trying to acquire nuclear weapons.  And they are providing a safe haven for terrorists and al-Qaeda including two of Osama bin Laden’s sons.

During the Cold War, the struggle between United States and the USSR never came to direct war, although a couple of smaller skirmishes took place (Korea and Vietnam).  The US maintained a wary attitude towards the Soviet Block nations and took steps to block their attempts to spread communism around the world.  This became known as the ‘Domino theory.’  The US took solace in the fact that we stopped communism without having to go to war with the Soviets.  In the same way, we have a struggle against radical Islam in the world today.  While not actively admitting it, the US has engaged in several skirmishes with the Iranians—Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US embassy in Tehran.  We have been at war with them for some time, just not directly.  Iran is one of the countries who is actively supporting and financing much of the terrorist activity in the world today.  With Tehran’s insistence on its ‘peaceful’ nuclear ambitions, the US must be ready for a new Cold War, this time against Iran. A rogue regime with ties to terrorists and has nuclear ambitions is something the US just can not abide by.  They must be stopped, otherwise we may lose a lot more than 3000 as we did on 9/11.

Those who have the time, there is a long but very interesting post on BlackFive in which Subsunk responds to a letter, most likely from an Iranian.  It is a very enlightening post in which Subsunk defines why Iran is not being honest about its enrichment program.  Well worth reading.

Tags: Terrorism, Iran by Chuck
No Comments »

The AP has certainly chosen sides in Israel’s war against Islamic terror and they have sided with the terrorists.  The current problems in Gaza is a perfect example.  An errant artillery shell killed 18 members of a family..  Hamas comes out and says they are ending their truce with Israel.  And like puppets on a strike, the AP obediently follows the tagline.  The title of the article say it all: ‘Hamas Ends Truce with Israel after Military Raid.’

“The armed struggle is free to resume,” he said, adding that Hamas would answer the deaths with “deeds, not words.”

Other militant groups pledged to follow suit. (snip)

The Israeli shelling occurred early Wednesday as residents were sleeping in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, focus of a weeklong military offensive aimed at stopping rocket fire.  (emphasis added by TRS)

This is the only time the AP even mentions why Israel was attacking into Gaza.  Even then the focus is shrouded in obscurity.  The IDF went into Gaza to stop the katyusha rockets being launched at Israel.  These rockets are unguided and are an instrument of terror aimed at civilians.  The government of Israel has an obligation to protect their citizens.

You can be sure the Bush administration would invade Mexico if rockets were being launched in attacks on civilian centers in the US.  And yet the AP acts as if the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was attacking Gaza for the fun of it.  Israel has been under attack for years.  They have a fundamental right to protect themselves.  An government which does not seek to protect their citizens is negligent in their duties.  Olmert is promising to continue the attacks until the katyusha rocket attacks stop.  Good for him.  When one side continues to attack the other, there is no truce.  It is a farce feed to news organizations like the AP who eat it up.

The AP in reporting this story is not being faithful to their readers.  Like usual, they have sided against democracy and with the terrorists.  When are they going to quit being the lap-dogs of the terrorists?

As a side note, Hamas has indicated a willingness to teach the US ‘hard lessons’ for supporting Israel.  The terrorists do not like Democracy.  They  do not like our freedoms.  And they would kill us if they could. I say, ‘arm Israel to the teeth and let them take care of the terrorists.’  Just a thought.

Tags: Terrorism, Bias, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The New York Post has a great editorial in which the leaked NIE is elaborated on.  While I would like to just link to it, there is too much that is just too good to leave alone.

How far will Democrats go for partisan gain?

Far enough to compromise national security?

Looks that way.

Late last week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) suspended a Democratic staff member on suspicion of leaking a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to The New York Times. The staffer’s security clearance was also blocked.

Initial reports on the NIE cited it as saying principally that the Iraq war had energized Islamist radicals and, in the process, increased the danger to America from jihadist terrorism. In fact, taken in its entirety, the document concluded just the opposite: that the military defeat of jihadists in Iraq would mean “fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the [war].”

That’s a big difference.

And the selective leaking of the NIE - and the spin put on it by the Times and The Washington Post, among others - put the White House on the defensive and contributed to lagging poll numbers for both the president and the Republican Congress.

Which is likely just what the leaker intended.

This leak was never about protecting the country, it was about weakening a President in a time of war.  How far will the Dems go far partisan gain?  As far as they can get by with. The Democrats will do anything to win the Presidency and Congress, and I mean anything—lie, cheat, or steal.

And who should come riding to the rescue of the leaking staff member but Jane Harman, Democrat from California.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, said she was outraged that the staffer was suspended and insisted that his access to classified material be reinstated.

This staffer leaked highly classified material to the press and Mrs. Harman wants everything to be forgiven as if nothing of consequence had happened.  Note to Congresswoman Harman—this leak harmed the United States of America.  It has possibly emboldened terrorists to kill more US troops.  It has damaged the credibility of a President in a time of war and has harmed the credibility of the United States.

What am I doing?  The Congresswoman obviously cares nothing about our troops, the credibility of this country or the President, otherwise she would not have shrugged off such a crime.  She cares more for the hopes and dreams of the Democratic Party than she does this nation.  She deserves the boot rather than re-election.

If Jane Harman is the best the Democratic Party has, then this nation may be in big trouble if the Democrats win the majority of the House.  To me, she represents the epitome of the ineptitude in the Democratic Party in their ability to protect the United States from terrorist attacks.

Tags: Terrorism, Corruption, Democrats by Chuck
No Comments »

For those who want the skinny on the abuse at Gitmo, be sure to read this article from Claudia Rosett of the Philadelphia Inquirer.   It is a must read, especially for those who want to learn more about how the ‘detainees’ are being tortured.

Hat tip: Penraker

Tags: Terrorism by Chuck
No Comments »

The House of Representatives has passed a bill commonly called the Detainee Interrogation Act. This bill was mandated by the Supreme Court decision saying that Congress had to okay the establishment of military tribunals to try the terrorists. The more conservative members of Congress voted for creating the tribunals while most Democrats voted against it. Today the Senate is set to vote for this important legislation.

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress’ blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration’s old system, it nevertheless would not include rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments, but gives the president broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators may use legally. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

This legislation is necessary to protect state secrets from making their way into US courtrooms and thus open to the public. This bill lets the rest of the world know that this country does not engage in torture to gain information. This bill certainly gives the terrorists more rights than they gave those they beheaded. This bill is necessary because of one undeniable fact: this country is at war. And that is a fact the Democrats are trying to run away from.

After Wednesday’s mostly party-line vote in the Republican-run House, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement that Democrats who voted against the measure “voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists.”

He added, “So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan.”

In response, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops, and be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

Dennis Hastert is right. These terrorists are not Americans, so they do not have the same rights under the law as American citizens have. These terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, so they do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. These terrorists could care less what this nation’s laws say about the treatment of detainees. They will still kill and torture Americans and American soldiers at any and every opportunity. Changing the law in favor of the terrorists will not protect the American soldiers. As to Pelosi’s argument that this legislation would endanger American soldiers captured by other countries is specious at best. If our soldiers could be so lucky as to be treated with the same deference this country treats captured soldiers from other countries. Among our many wars, the United States has been the only country to have followed the Geneva Convention.

Lost in this argument is that these detainees are terrorists. They brutally kill people with glee. They torture with impunity. And they want to kill us. This is a war we must win. The United States is a civilized society. As such our soldiers do not kill those who surrender. Part of winning includes taking those who surrender and trying them in a court of law for their crimes while maintaining our soldier’s ability to continue fighting. Another part of winning this war is understanding just who it is that the US has locked up in Gitmo. John Weisman writing for Military.com says it best.

And yet, many in Congress, as well as the obstructionist lawyers running our armed services’ JAG Corps, are pushing to treat al-Qa’ida’s murderers as if they were shoplifters, embezzlers, or Martha Stewart. No rough stuff. No threats. No demeaning tactics. No tricks. White hat treatment all the way. Oh, and by all means, supply their defense attorneys with any of the sources and methods that led to their capture.

I really wonder where the Democrat’s loyalty lies in this war on terror. It does seem they are more interested in defending the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people. After watching the way Democrats are going after George Bush and defending terror suspects, it is little wonder why the terrorists think they can win.

I found this letter from Fredericksburg.com in Virginia in which in a letter to the editor, a reader summed up the Democrats this way:

You should remember that you can’t trust Democrats, especially with homeland security and the war on terror.

Some Democrats may say they are for the war on terror, but then criticize every aspect of the war on terror. The Democrats obviously oppose the war in Iraq, even though it is an important part in the war on terror.

This is the place where we overthrew and captured the dictator who tortured his own people, sponsored terrorism, and works with various terror organizations, including al-Qaida.

It’s also the place where many terrorists were captured or killed, including Jordanian al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Democrats also call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. This is the place where the U.S. detains suspected terrorists who want to kill Americans.

The detainees there continue to hate America and throw feces at their prison guards.

The Democrats also oppose the Patriot Act, which has been vital to protect this country. The Patriot Act enables the FBI and CIA to work together (which was not allowed in the Clinton administration).

The Democrats also oppose the NSA wiretaps, which listen in to foreign calls that have al-Qaida connections.

Do the Democrats support the global war on terror? The Republicans surely do, which could be the reason that there have been no more terror attacks in the U.S.

I do not understand the Democratic reaction to the war on terror. At every turn they seem to be more interested in protecting the rights of those who would kill us than with protecting Americans. I would just like to know why. Why are Democrats so interested in protecting the terrorists? Why are they so interested in tearing down the President and our troops? Let’s win this war and then, and only then, we can continue politics as usual.

Another worthy blog writing on this issue:

Chaos in Motion: Detainee Trials and Political Opposition 

Tags: Terrorism, Democrats, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »