Monday, October 03, 2005
What Does The Future Hold?
I had a chilling thought today. Since 9/11 I have been of the opinion that the reason we have not seen any other well-planned terrorist attacks against the US was because of our bold response in taking the war to the terrorists. In less than a month we had launched attacks against the Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. From there we moved on to Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein's bloodthirsty dictatorship. From that point Lybia and other countries got a lot more congenial in their dealings with us.
Now anyone knows that the Department of Homeland Security is not the reason for the absence of attacks in the US. It's not because of the TSA and their vigilance in searching babies and senior citizens for any signs of terrorist intent. It's not because of our sensible policies on immigration and borders. I mean, we've got folks in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service exchanging green cards for sex. But I was sure it was because every terrorist group and rogue nation in the world was convinced that if they did stage an attack our response would be so swift, so devastating that it wouldn't be worth it. Now I'm not so sure.
This morning in Neal Boortz' "Neal's Nuze" he discussed the bombings in Bali this weekend. "Islam remains a violent religion, as these bombings show. At its core is a fragmented, fanatical leadership that believes that if you are a non-believer...if you aren't a Muslim, then you must die. There is nothing that can't be justified, including killing people, to promote the spread of Islam. ... It won't be long before Islamic suicide bombers are patrolling the restaurants and shopping malls of the United States." The last sentence made me think, "What if...?"
What if I'm right and terrorists haven't attacked the United States because they are afraid of the gunslinging cowboy we've got running the show? What if they are just biding their time?
Bush will be out of office in just over 3 years. There's a better than even chance that our next President will not hold to the Bush doctrine of "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." In fact, our next President may be, God forbid, a spineless, appeasing Left-Wing Democrat.
Imagine the course of history if Al Gore had been in office on 9/11.
Imagine the course of the future if someone like Gore (or worse, someone like Hillary Clinton) is in office on January 21, 2009. ¶ Monday, October 03, 2005
I had a chilling thought today. Since 9/11 I have been of the opinion that the reason we have not seen any other well-planned terrorist attacks against the US was because of our bold response in taking the war to the terrorists. In less than a month we had launched attacks against the Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. From there we moved on to Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein's bloodthirsty dictatorship. From that point Lybia and other countries got a lot more congenial in their dealings with us.
Now anyone knows that the Department of Homeland Security is not the reason for the absence of attacks in the US. It's not because of the TSA and their vigilance in searching babies and senior citizens for any signs of terrorist intent. It's not because of our sensible policies on immigration and borders. I mean, we've got folks in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service exchanging green cards for sex. But I was sure it was because every terrorist group and rogue nation in the world was convinced that if they did stage an attack our response would be so swift, so devastating that it wouldn't be worth it. Now I'm not so sure.
This morning in Neal Boortz' "Neal's Nuze" he discussed the bombings in Bali this weekend. "Islam remains a violent religion, as these bombings show. At its core is a fragmented, fanatical leadership that believes that if you are a non-believer...if you aren't a Muslim, then you must die. There is nothing that can't be justified, including killing people, to promote the spread of Islam. ... It won't be long before Islamic suicide bombers are patrolling the restaurants and shopping malls of the United States." The last sentence made me think, "What if...?"
What if I'm right and terrorists haven't attacked the United States because they are afraid of the gunslinging cowboy we've got running the show? What if they are just biding their time?
Bush will be out of office in just over 3 years. There's a better than even chance that our next President will not hold to the Bush doctrine of "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." In fact, our next President may be, God forbid, a spineless, appeasing Left-Wing Democrat.
Imagine the course of history if Al Gore had been in office on 9/11.
Imagine the course of the future if someone like Gore (or worse, someone like Hillary Clinton) is in office on January 21, 2009. ¶ Monday, October 03, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
James,
You raise a good point. Consider this, because of our extremely lax, inept border protection chances are more than good that there are already several al Qaeda terrorist sleeper cells positioned in our country right now.
Also, given the Republican party's failure to act when they were handed a Republican Presidency twice, as well as Republican dominance in both the House and the Senate, and given the American voters' tendancy to want balance (i.e. Republican dominance in the House and Senate calls for a Democratic President) despite the oddity of what Republicans have been given by the voters for both of Bush's terms, and have squadered, we just might be headed for a Democratic President next time.
After all, the voters gave the Republicans two, I repeat two terms to make a change only to find the Republicans busy appeasing the Democrats and trying to equal them in government spending.
That means we will have a Commander in Chief who will be afraid to antagonize the enemy,(lest terrorism should express itself even more).
This means we will have a Commander in Chief who will look to the UN and Europe for permission to do anything.
This will be a Commander in Chief who will make appeasment his or her main credo, and erroneously believe that he or she is "taking the higher ground".
Once President "scaredy cat" is sworn in, al Qaeda will likely introduce the citizens of the U.S. to what the citizens of Israel have had to live with for decades: terrorism in their city streets.
Post a Comment
You raise a good point. Consider this, because of our extremely lax, inept border protection chances are more than good that there are already several al Qaeda terrorist sleeper cells positioned in our country right now.
Also, given the Republican party's failure to act when they were handed a Republican Presidency twice, as well as Republican dominance in both the House and the Senate, and given the American voters' tendancy to want balance (i.e. Republican dominance in the House and Senate calls for a Democratic President) despite the oddity of what Republicans have been given by the voters for both of Bush's terms, and have squadered, we just might be headed for a Democratic President next time.
After all, the voters gave the Republicans two, I repeat two terms to make a change only to find the Republicans busy appeasing the Democrats and trying to equal them in government spending.
That means we will have a Commander in Chief who will be afraid to antagonize the enemy,(lest terrorism should express itself even more).
This means we will have a Commander in Chief who will look to the UN and Europe for permission to do anything.
This will be a Commander in Chief who will make appeasment his or her main credo, and erroneously believe that he or she is "taking the higher ground".
Once President "scaredy cat" is sworn in, al Qaeda will likely introduce the citizens of the U.S. to what the citizens of Israel have had to live with for decades: terrorism in their city streets.
<< Home
