Why I don’t Trust Democrats with Defense
The answer is quite simple: their record since the late 1960s combined with their current actions. While JFK was a pro-defense and strong anti-communist, since the late 1960s, the democratic party has almost universally misread our enemy, seeing us as the problem, calling for reductions in defense.
They misread the enemy in Vietnam. Even after the peace treaty and the withdrawal of our troops, democrats pushed for and got a complete cut off of aid, resulting in the collapse of the south and the subsequent death of millions and effective imprisonment of millions more in the region.
They misread the USSR, seeing the US as the problem, not soviet expansionism. As a result, the Soviets expanded into country after country: Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Rhodesia, and Nicaragua until with the invasion of Afghanistan even Carter began to see a problem.
They misread situation in Iran, opposing the Shah for “human right abuses” looking instead to Khomeini. (Though Carter, did support the Shah somewhat, it was somewhat off and on, and ultimately not of much help).
They misread the situation in Grenada opposing US action that freed the island nation.
They misread the Sandinista in Nicaragua, and the FMLN in El Salvador, again seeing the US as the problem, and opposing US actions and policies that were ultimately successful.
All during this period they say the US, not the USSR as the main problem and opposed Reagan’s policies that ultimately led to the fall of the USSR.
They opposed the first Gulf War, (Though they later were critical of Bush for “not finishing the job” they had opposed in the first place, and then later were critical of the current President for finishing the job).
While since 9/11, while many liberals now see terrorists as an enemy, I still do not think that many grasp the real nature of the threat. Kerry, and many other democrats still talk of this as if it was more a law enforcement issue than a war. In addition, many on the left still see the US as the main problem and it is our actions that have caused the terrorism. Jean Kirkpatrick coined the label the “blame America First” crowd. While this certainly does not fit every liberal, it continues to fit a great many on the left, particularly in the leadership position, and particular if “America” is governed by a conservative.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
I certainly don’t see any thing that would convincement that Kerry or the democrats would do a better job, and a lot that indicates they would do a lot worse.
True this does not represent all democrats, or even all liberals, but I believe it does represent the leadership of the party. On the other hand, this is the first time I can remember that leading democrats have actually rejected the nominee of their party and endorsed a Republican.
