Sep 27 2006

Does Anyone Oppose A “War” On Terror? Liberals Do.

If you ask most Americans if we are at war with terrorists since 9-11 they will wisely say ‘yes’. It is clear one the largest ‘dots’ we failed to connect under Bill Clinton was Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the US. But now some lefty liberals fret that to acknowledge the true essence of the epic struggle we find ourselves in will only hand conservatives too much power. They do not want to consider our struggle a war of any kind:

The proposal now before Congress would recognize and define “unlawful enemy combatant” for the first time. That would give the fight against terrorism the legal status of an armed conflict, because it is impossible to have an illegal combatant without a conflict, lawmakers and security lawyers say.

Critics say the measure could open the way to a range of unpredictable and unintended consequences.

Is this concern one of fear we will fail to win our battle against terrorism? Of course not! The concern is Bush will succeed in the battle against terrorism and relegate liberalism to the dustbin of history – permanently. The idea liberals need Bush to fail for liberalism to succeed is understating the situation. Liberals need Bush to fail in order for liberalism to survive.

The left has made the stakes too high now. If Bush wins, and terrorism is beaten back to be replaced by democracies, the left will be permanently marked as utter failures. So now we see the truth of this election. This is clear by who we find raising the warning flags that to treat our war with terrorism as an actual war is a bad thing:

“It’s not like there’s a big neon light around it, saying, ‘This is really important,’ when it is,” said a Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to be quoted by name. “This is the kind of thing that we’re going to be talking much more about a month from now, or six months from now, saying, ‘Oh, shoot.'”

This is what frightens Democrats – Bush succeeding in protecting us and defeating our enemies. No one is worried about declaring war on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda except Liberal Democrats. They are playing Russian Roullette with our lives, hoping to tie Bush up just enough so they can win Congress and not get us killed in the process. The Reps are discussing the war on Terrorism and liberals are obsessing about the war on conservatism. Somebody has their priorities screwed up and their focus well off target. So, do we treat our war on terror as an actual war or go back to treating terrorism as a criminal career option?

23 responses so far

23 Responses to “Does Anyone Oppose A “War” On Terror? Liberals Do.”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    I have to agree, it is very obvious that Ken only says what he does to be provocative. He is clearly anti-American and that about says it all.

  2. Ken says:

    Being called a “foil” by a guy who a few months ago was saying
    Iraq’s conflagration could not accurately be called a “war” is a relief.

    It is easy to “provoke” For Enforcement who believes Buchanan is a leftist, likening For Enforcement to the drunk Red Skelton portrayed who could walk straight only in an eathquake.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    It’s even easier to provoke Frenchmen, huh Ken since they don’t know the difference.

    I know that Buchanan is generally considered to be a conservative, but my observation is that most of the policies he now expounds are on the left, therefore, he must be a leftist. Yes, I realize you wouldn’t know the difference anyhow. Just as I’m sure you don’t know if your butt was bored or punched.

    Yes Ken you serve a useful purpose, to keep us up on how the left is thinking. Keep it up, you’re doing great. All we have to do is read what you say and realize that’s the left’s current view.

    Hey, I noticed you stayed out of commenting on global warming, but that’s ok, I know what you would say anyhow.

    Give Jacque our regards.