Friday, May 23, 2008
Liberals and Libertarians: DEAD Wrong on National Security
Elections piece by
JB Williams
Hillary Clinton was for the war on terror including in Iraq, before she had to become against it to attract her Code Pink feminazi core for a White House bid. Barack Obama says he would have been against it from the start, had he been out of his political diapers at the time those tough decisions had to be made. Both are running on ideological hindsight and campaign rhetoric.
But 300 million Americans expected President Bush alone to make certain that there would be no 2nd 9/11. He has done just that, no matter how politically uncomfortable leftists have made it for him in their quest for political power at any cost.
Libertarians like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are equally foolish in their isolationist blame America first and often national security rhetoric.
Since these mental midgets have such big mouths on such an important subject that they clearly know nothing about, it’s time to KISS national security, keep it simple stupid, before the American voter makes a treacherous mistake this November.
Playing Defense
Both liberals and libertarians seem to have missed their security 101 courses, even the basics learned by the average voter before they reach the 3rd grade. Defense alone won’t win anything. Winning anything requires an offense.
Name your analogy…
The most talented baseball players with the best training and the best equipment cannot defeat even the worst teams in the league if they only take the field in a defensive posture, pitching and catching while refusing their turn at bat.
Sooner or later, the other team (enemy) is going to knock one out of the park and when they do, you lose. Do you really think this fundamental truth goes missing in the subject of war, especially with unmarked international terrorists?
Can you imagine Barack Obama holding his basketball team to rebounds at the defensive end of the court, refusing to cross center court or allow his teammates to take an “offensive” shot at the goal? Yet somehow, this lesson does not carry over from the basketball court to national security for Obama. Call it the youthful ignorance of inexperience in his case…
Would Hillary Clinton be a U.S. Senator, let alone a presidential candidate, if she was opposed to playing offense? Being the most offensive female in America today, I’m confident she gets the concept of offense when it comes to her political ambitions, just not when it applies to national security. Call it a politically calculated double standard in her case…
Likewise, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul practice a “take no prisoners” approach towards political foes in their hyperbolic rancor. But they both take a “hands-off” isolationist approach to enemies that would murder every American if they could. Why the disconnect?
Sound Offense
Trained a bit in the art of self-defense myself, I can assure you that there is NO defense like a sound offense. You never have to worry about defending against attacks that can’t be launched.
In every confrontation, someone takes an offensive posture forcing the other to take a defensive posture. The trick is making your offense look like nothing more than a defense. Teddy Roosevelt put it this way, “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”
Teddy didn’t say “tread lightly,” or “appease your enemies,” for fear of upsetting someone’s feelings. He didn’t say you can avoid any need to fight if you “walk softly,” so as not to offend anyone. He said, “Carry a big stick.” Shshshshhhh… quietly!
Walking Softly
“Walk softly” means, watch your step and don’t tip your hand. It does not mean “tip-toe around trying to appease enemies who won’t be appeased.” If you are never going to play offense, what’s the big stick for?
America has never been a conqueror of nations. Throughout history, every American soldier has been sent to battle as a defender of freedom and a liberator of people seeking freedom from tyranny, terror and bondage. America is the only superpower in history to “walk softly” with its might, seeking to conquer no people, no nation.
In every instance, our big stick has only been used to liberate, even then, only after peaceful diplomatic efforts had failed.
DEAD Wrong
People who refuse to play offense, limiting themselves to defensive moves only, whether in sports, chess, politics, war or life, doom themselves to failure and in matters of life and death, failure is not an option.
So long as liberals and libertarians refuse to face this reality, they are ill-equipped to protect and preserve even themselves. 300 million patriots would be completely foolish to an extreme of suicidal, to place in positions of power, people who have not yet learned this basic reality of life.
To Make Matters Worse
The same people who refuse to play offense insist upon blindfolding and tying the hands of those they doom to playing defense. If we are not going to play offense, we had better be damn good at playing defense.
The National Security Agency, whose entire purpose is to “intercept” enemy communications before a threat can fully materialize, was “caught intercepting enemy communications.” Liberals and libertarians, even those in-the-know, acted like they were shocked to learn that the agency was in the business of “intercepting” communications, stumping for the cameras, that this was some egregious affront to the civil rights of innocent Americans.
HOGWASH!
Had Al Qaeda sent the White House a memo detailing the 9/11 plot in advance, which date and time they intended to hijack which planes and aim them towards which targets, I’m pretty sure we would have come up with a viable defensive strategy to thwart the attacks of 9/11.
But since our enemies don’t send us those kinds of memos in advance, defending against such events requires “intercepting” operational communications that our enemies do not intend us to have.
I’m quite certain that nearly every American citizen understands this reality, even if they only picked it up from watching Mission Impossible. So why don’t liberal and libertarian politicians get it? Or are they just willing to forfeit national security for partisan power?
Even some so-called conservatives are off the reservation on this subject today. How can we come up with a defense against the next 9/11 when we won’t even ask the only people on earth who can tell us when, where and what, in a convincing manner? Beheading, dismembering, burning alive, these are forms of “torture.” Pouring water in a known terrorists face is NOT torture. It’s a reasonable motivation technique for those who resist friendlier motivation efforts.
Is it fun? No… not quite like a day at Disney. But we are talking about people who intend further death and destruction to the most unsuspecting innocent unarmed citizens of our country. Get real!
Irresponsibly Stupid
This is the best I can say for many modern liberals and libertarians today. Too many are too well informed regarding the very real threats facing our nation today to be called ignorant. Ignorance is when someone simply lacks the facts. Stupid is when they have all the necessary facts, but refuse to act intelligently with them. Stupid is as stupid does. Even Forest Gump understood this.
I can only hope and pray that a majority of American voters are smarter than the idiots pandering for their votes.
Anti-War?
I am 48 years old and was born and raised in America. I have yet to meet my first “pro-war” American.
However, I do know a lot of peace and freedom loving pro-national sovereignty and security Americans, and I can only hope that most of them are wise enough to know that without a sound offense, there is no adequate defense.
Without a sound offense, security is limited to locking ourselves into bunkers awaiting the next attack, while we blindfold our intelligence community and tie the hands of those who have volunteered to keep civilians safe.
God help this nation when the people who don’t understand this fundamental truth outnumber the Americans who do…
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
