Wednesday, August 22, 2007

You Can't Have Your Cake And Eat It Too

This really gets me.

The CarpetBagger Report had a post yesterday on "The Terrorism Index." Among other things, the post used the new report from the Center for American Progress to suggest the Bush Administration has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism.

I don't take issue with the report's findings, although considering its mission statement:
"The Center for American Progress is a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action."

And the participants in the report (Among them - Madeleine Albright and Gary Hart)

And the organization's leader:
The Center for American Progress is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President William J. Clinton and a professor at Georgetown University Center of Law.'s no wonder the report came out decidedly againt the war in Iraq, and against the administration.

That being said, the issue is not necessarily the conclusion of the report, which should be taken with a grain of salt, if at all.

The issue with the post on CarpetBagger is that of convenience. At every turn, liberal blogs, in particular CarpetBagger and Daily Kos - make it a point to decry the right's terrorism fears, even specifially calling out conservative blogs and pundits for "hyping" Islamic terror.

Just last week, CarpetBagger accused conservatives and conservative Bloggers of hyping the threat from Islamic terror. But now, the terrorism threat is getting worse, and it's all Bush's fault.

Also last week, a Blogger on DailyKos spent an entire post decrying the way in which terrorists are demonized like the Huns and the Nazis were demonized. The Blogger concluded that terrorists are not fighting in the name of Islam, but only because they are being occupied. Curiously, this contradicts what the terrorists have said in their own words.

Liberal, or "progressive" Bloggers, as they prefer to be called, cannot have their cake and eat it too. Either there is a terrorist threat, or there is not. Either it's not a big deal, as they said last week, or it's getting worse, as they're now saying today.

Which is it?

This also begs the question: If there is a real, and serious terrorist threat, who is going to help secure the country the most?

Barack Obama? A man who believes there is "no military solution" to combat terrorism? If a man who wants to be president cannot stomach the comparitively light casualties we have suffered in Iraq:

...while killing thousands of terrorists, how can he expect to lead? What kind of war is he willing to fight? Must the wolves be breaking down the door for us to justifiably act? Must there be another 9/11 to wake Mr. Obama up? Or what about John Edwards? Will he protect the country better? ...He doesn't even believe there is a war on terror.
The truth is... none of the Democratic candidates for president have made serious statements about terrorism, or even the war on terror. In fact, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out, none of the Democratic candidates have even said "Islamic terror" in any of their debates.
So... which candidate do I want protecting me from the terrorism threat?

No comments: