Lying liberals cannot defend U.S.
By Terry Tracy
Published: Thursday, April 15, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1
Howard Dean might not have convinced you that President George W. Bush somehow knew the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001, would happen beforehand, and just chose not to act. If Richard Clarke's ever-credible book tour-turned-testimony was enough to prove to you that Bush thought it was best to let terrorists prosper, then the newly released and much-anticipated Presidential briefing will leave no doubt in your mind.
The highly touted August 6, 2001, document supposedly outlined how Bush chose to ignore warnings of Sept. 11. But the actual document, based on intelligence gathered in 1998 certainly fell short of John Kerry's hopes and Clarke's claims. In fact, what the document outlined was that al Qaeda wanted to attack America, they wanted to attack federal targets in cities like New York and Washington, and that they may hijack planes.
Now I cannot say for sure whether this information was based solely on intelligence gathering, or whether other sources were used, like a sixth grade history textbook. Based on such specific information, it's clear what Bush should have done: He should have immediately closed New York and Washington indefinitely beginning August 7. Indeed, that's what a Democratic White House certainly would have done. If only there was a liberal in office, clearly the attacks were because of a Republican Administration, not because of the attackers.
Democrats keep on making unfortunate and desperate attacks as election season marches on. But these political antics of the extreme left seem to go unquestioned by the Dan Rather media. Why does no one question them when each passing promise of scandal passes virtually unnoticed by the vast majority of Americans?
Liberal ideologues tend to think that if they connect the dots for you, their motives won't be questioned, just as they so desperately want you to question Bush's. By the way, did you notice gas and oil prices going up? Funny, since we supposedly just fought a war over oil.
The minute the left begins to present a viable alternative to the Bush administration will be the minute I begin to take them seriously. It has become painfully clear that liberals like Ted Kennedy are not in the business of providing viable solutions to serious problems. Just as Joseph Kennedy appeased Hitler, so too is Ted appeasing the threats of our day. He and his kind are traitors to the cause of peace, the cause of long-term security, and the cause of democracy. History will judge them as such.
Where was the MoveOn.org crowd to cry foul when Kosovo was bombed relentlessly without U.N. authorization? Where was Nancy Pelosi calling for a restrained bombing campaign on Iraq in 1998? Where was Bob Kerrey demanding explanations on the presidential response to increase bold terrorist strikes through the 1990s? It is for these reasons the intellectual integrity and the moral courage of the far left must be questioned.
When will they have a set of values that is not manipulated by the political wind? Why can't we know what they stand for and what they would do to make this country better? Quite obviously, there is no vision. With their politics of appeasement, the real quagmire would be America.
Today's Democrats have a lot to learn from their forgotten past. Franklin Roosevelt promised to hold those who attacked our homeland responsible, and he did. Harry Truman, too, recognized that the pursuit of peace is empty without an ability and willingness to use force. The 20th century was stocked with that brand of Democrats. But they are dying, if not dead already. And it's a shame, because without them, America is not better and America is not safer.
