Unrealistic Dems
Frum and Perle:
"The results of the Iowa caucuses are being hailed as a victory for the tough-minded wing of the Democratic Party. But how tough really are the Iowa winners? Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, the top two finishers, may have shunned the wild rhetoric of Howard Dean. But they share their party's general unwillingness to think hard or realistically about the war on terrorism.
"In a December speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Kerry promised to treat the United Nations as a 'full partner' in the war on terrorism ? despite that organization's inability even to define terrorism, let alone fight it.
"...The United Nations is more likely to restrain us than help us in our war against terrorism.
"Senator Edwards, for his part, has said some reassuring things about increasing domestic security. But as a free society, we can't win this war by building ourselves a better Maginot Line....
"When President Bush said on 9/11 that we would not distinguish between the terrorists and the states that harbor them, he changed a longstanding American policy of treating terrorism as a criminal act best dealt with by the institutions of law enforcement. This is a point Mr. Bush has held steadfastly to from that awful September day through last night's State of the Union address. And he is right: no longer can we afford to hunt down individual terrorists while leaving the states that sheltered them unmolested.
"We should ask the would-be presidents this: Why did the Taliban regime invite Osama bin Laden to bring his terrorist organization to Afghanistan? At the time, the United States was Afghanistan's single largest contributor of humanitarian aid; harboring terrorists could only put the Taliban regime itself in harm's way. Or could it? In the end, the Taliban was emboldened by the fact that the Clinton administration never did challenge it, never forced it to pay a substantial price for harboring terrorists.
...
"If the Democrats are serious about their stated analyses of the terrorist threat, then they need to tell America their plan to destroy the terrorists and change the policies ? or, if necessary, the regimes ? of the states that support them...."
Frum and Perle:
"The results of the Iowa caucuses are being hailed as a victory for the tough-minded wing of the Democratic Party. But how tough really are the Iowa winners? Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, the top two finishers, may have shunned the wild rhetoric of Howard Dean. But they share their party's general unwillingness to think hard or realistically about the war on terrorism.
"In a December speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Kerry promised to treat the United Nations as a 'full partner' in the war on terrorism ? despite that organization's inability even to define terrorism, let alone fight it.
"...The United Nations is more likely to restrain us than help us in our war against terrorism.
"Senator Edwards, for his part, has said some reassuring things about increasing domestic security. But as a free society, we can't win this war by building ourselves a better Maginot Line....
"When President Bush said on 9/11 that we would not distinguish between the terrorists and the states that harbor them, he changed a longstanding American policy of treating terrorism as a criminal act best dealt with by the institutions of law enforcement. This is a point Mr. Bush has held steadfastly to from that awful September day through last night's State of the Union address. And he is right: no longer can we afford to hunt down individual terrorists while leaving the states that sheltered them unmolested.
"We should ask the would-be presidents this: Why did the Taliban regime invite Osama bin Laden to bring his terrorist organization to Afghanistan? At the time, the United States was Afghanistan's single largest contributor of humanitarian aid; harboring terrorists could only put the Taliban regime itself in harm's way. Or could it? In the end, the Taliban was emboldened by the fact that the Clinton administration never did challenge it, never forced it to pay a substantial price for harboring terrorists.
...
"If the Democrats are serious about their stated analyses of the terrorist threat, then they need to tell America their plan to destroy the terrorists and change the policies ? or, if necessary, the regimes ? of the states that support them...."
Comments
Post a Comment