| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Is Real Threat Al-Qaida Or Congress? |
| 2007-12-16 |
| National Security: After getting little done all year because it was too busy playing politics, Congress' year-end priority is to make fighting the global war on terror as difficult as possible. A jihadist couldn't ask for more. President Bush promises to veto legislation not containing immunity from lawsuits for telecom firms who cooperate with the U.S. government in terrorist surveillance. Apparently spoiling for a fight, the House passed a bill without such immunity. It also legislated to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods on suspected terrorists. Democrats also want to block 70% percent of the intelligence budget from being spent until the House and Senate intelligence committees get briefed on Israel's September airstrike on an apparent nuclear facility in Syria. And they continue to try to tie war funding to a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq. The pattern is clear: Over and over again, the ever-more disloyal opposition places obstacles in the way of our fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist enemies. Whether it be on the Iraq battlefield, over the fiber-optic pathways of the Internet and voice communications, or in the cells of captured guerrillas, the Democratic Congress is against the most aggressive methods to win the new kind of war Western civilization now wages. Fortunately, it has also, over and over again, run into another pattern: the president's trademark stubbornness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently displayed her frustration with the commander-in-chief's determination, giving a peak into liberal Democrats' misguided thinking. "They like this war. They want this war to continue," she told reporters, adding that "the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., concurred. "It's not just Nancy Pelosi," she said. "I made a mistake. I predicted we would stop the war. We thought President Bush and the Republicans would be more compromising on the war." That is not quite the complete and unvarnished truth. What Democrats thought was that U.S. forces could not win, and that Iraq would seriously deteriorate this year. Those wearing the uniform soon proved her wrong after Bush applied the new surge strategy with 30,000 new troops and Marines, and a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus. As House Republican leader John Boehner recently noted, "It's clear that Democratic leaders underestimated the stakes, the consequences of failure and the determination of our troops to defeat al-Qaida on the battlefield." A few years ago it was a different story. In 2002, as we learned last week, none other than Nancy Pelosi, along with other congressional leaders from both parties, were briefed on the waterboarding and other tough practices being employed to extract information about terrorist plots from a limited number of al-Qaida detainees. Somehow, none of them thought it was worth raising a peep back then. So in the wake of 9/11, liberal Democrats were hawks because the polls supported that. Now, with the presidential primary season well under way, they're doves under pressure from the likes of MoveOn.org and others in their political and financial base. The GOP by comparison has held firm, as Boehner could boast last week. "Republicans have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not, and the success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one," he said. Next year, the American people will have a momentous decision before them in choosing George W. Bush's successor. The same enemy will be there, as determined as ever to commit more 9/11-style atrocities. Whether it's guns or surveillance or interrogation, Congress this year has shown us all that it would take away the tools necessary to protect Americans — if only it had a president who would sign on. |
| Posted by:Cromert |
| #3 not likely. "Disgusting", "shameful" etc. apply, but they are generally exempt from prosecution whilst conducting their usual |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-12-16 22:39 |
| #2 i was wondering...could someone make a case for 'wrongful death' if the actions of congress directly lead to a soldiers/civilians being killed? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-12-16 22:23 |
| #1 Worth the time to read, from Investor's Business Daily, and remember - if you have a 401(k), you're an investor. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-12-16 13:59 |