Monday, March 13, 2006

Dump the Lame Democrats

OH REALLY...Another No-Duh moment for the New York Times, Democrats are not "capitalizing" on Republican sleaziness, law-breaking, and incompetence. Thus blowing the chance for gains in 2006 ("Some Democrats are Sensing Missed Opportunities.") Letter-to-editor-writer Robert Resnikoff of Middletown, CT explains to the political newbies that:
"the Democrats need to take a page from the Republican playbook and attack the other party on its perceived strengths. President Bush's operatives took on Senator John McCain and then Senator John Kerry on their war heroism. The
Democrats don't need to be nearly as dishonest to raise questions about President Bush on national security."

Attack perceived strengths? Oh right, this is what pols do when they actually want to WIN an election.

Democrats don't even NEED to lie about Bush bungling the capture or killing of bin Laden at Tora Bora (read the book by the CIA operative code-named "Jawbreaker.") Unless Bush bungled it on purpose, and I do not believe for one minute that this could not be the case. The war on terror has been quite good for GWB. You could also say Bush "did a Cheney" and aimed wild at Iraq instead of the bird. The hunting accident is a perfect metaphor for this whole administration. Psst! Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda high command are holed up comfortably in Pakistan, not Iraq. Mike Scheuer, top CIA analyst and "Imperial Hubris" author, wanted to put massive manpower on the border while the towers were still smoldering, to seal off the exits, then stomp one end of the Pakistani mountains to the other. "Breaking the crockery, if necessary," says Scheuer, until we found bin Laden. Which is what we oughta be doing now.

Iraq took the fight AWAY from the enemy. Bin Laden, who is like Road Runner peeking out from behind bushes and sticking his tongue out at Bush, was the duck, or whatever the hell, and Iraq was the poor lawyer Cheney blasted instead. We need to get out of Iraq, move troops to Afghanistan, and get on with finding the people who attacked us. In Iraq we just walked into the middle of a family quarrel, which you don't do because you don't know who is whom and who hates whom the most. Everyone knows that.

If you want to attack the Bush Faction on national security, we could talk about the 130 tons of HMX high explosives we discovered lost in Iraq in October of 2004, or rather, how we're finding them car bombs. I no longer call them the "Republicans" because there are a lot of good Republicans now who are looking at Bush like he's crazy, which he is. I just can't believe how long it took some people to see it. The guy landed on an aircraft carrier like Jesus-with-a-cowboy-hat-and-a-sidearm.

While in Vietnam your biggest worry was a landmine or a bullet, now in Iraq we're facing bombs that can leave your brain
permanently rattled even if you don't have a scratch on you.

Or we could talk about the "F" on follow-through that the post-9/11 commission gave Bush, on things like securing harbors and chemical plants, and hiring translators.

The fact is, Bush seems uninterestesd in the war on terror, except of course, those parts that increase his power. Translators? Boring. Warrantless eavesdropping? Fight for it like hell! Plugging holes in airport security? Pu-leese. Locking up Americans? Let's do it!

My favorite ACLJew lawyer Harvey Silverglate (Harvey lives down my street) writes in the Boston Phoenix:
"Whatever else he may or may not be, Bush is strategic: what better vehicle for delivering himself sweeping, unchecked "inherent" presidential power than through an appeal to national security in an area -- electronic surveillance -- where public-opinion polls indicate that Americans are most willing to sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for perceived security?"

Like a laser as always Harvey zeroes in on it:
"If Bush wins this round, the next step will almost certainly be a claim to presidential power to engage in torture or executive detention of citizens with neither charge nor trial nor time limit"

Actually Bush ALREADY claims the right of executive detention of citizens without time limit. The trial balloon, still untested by the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court axis, is Jose Padilla. They pulled back on Padilla for now, most likely waiting for a more favorable climate (read: after an attack) to nail down the power to lock up anyone incommunicado, without a trial, indefinitely.

Hear this. It could be you. It could be anybody. There was a reason the Founders fought the Revolution, so that kings could not drag you away in the night and throw you in a dungeon.

If John Kerry had attacked Bush on national security, he would be president right now. Incumbent Democrats are throwing the fight, and acting like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. So forget those clowns. Follow our Fighting Candidates page (I changed it from "fighting Democrats" to make room for a patriotic Republican or two.) Give them money. Urge them to get behind a united agenda, my suggested one, for instance. Realize you are living in an incredible time in history. Great republics don't die every day, and you are alive to maybe stop it. Your grandchildren will ask: What did you do?


Post a Comment

<< Home