Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 23, 2007
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.

7) The Democrats are overly concerned with "international opinion," AKA "European opinion." The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don't have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point -- yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.

8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it's not advisable to reveal intelligence methods -- or because our soldiers aren't trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he'd be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.

9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we've seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.

If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The Facts don't support the premise
A friend e-mailed me this article which looked interesting until I read the second paragraph which is fraught with inaccuracies namely:

Allegation: Clinton did not deal with suspected assination attempt of George H. W. Bush --

Fact: Clinton, having been in office just three months when the alleged plot to assassinate George H. W. Bush in Kuwait was thwarted, ordered a retalitory cruise missle attack on a building of the Iraq IIS which took place on June 23.
Source: Part II of Section D of the report 'The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases', published by the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, in April, 1997.

Allegation: Clinton did not deal with th Bombing of the Cole--

Fact: It seems we had no reliable proof at the time, October 12, 2000, who to retaliate against other than "international terrorists" -- like, who should Clinton have bombed? The palistinians were mentioned as was Osama bin Laden. However, on November 22, 2000 after the election of George W., General Shelton told reporters that a retaliation might be possible but declined to say at who. The newly elected president was consulted on considerations of any action that might leave him with a new war somwhere before he even took office.

Allegation: that Clinton failed to take action to prevent the aquisition of a nuclear weapon by India, Pakistan and North Korea:

Facts: Aquisition of the weapon occurred for each country as measured by date of first sucessful explosion:
India 1974, under Nixon for prior 5 years
Pakistan, 1998 under Clinton for prior 5 years
North Korea, 2006 under George W. Bush for prior 5 years
Source: Wikipedia

Needless to say, I did not read on once I discovered these as they were the basis for the whole tone of the article.

officials knew of neglect at Walter Reed
Top officials knew of neglect at Walter Reed

How can Congress and the White House talk about supporting troops and do nothing about this problem for years?

MSN-Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army’s surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army’s top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com

>
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.