Sunday, January 10, 2010

The left is weak on terror

Conservative Outpost talks Obama on terror.
But there’s an even more damning flaw to the contention that Bush should have been able to prevent 9/11, and is therefore as bad as or worse than Obama on national security. Namely: just what would Bush opponents have preferred that he do in his first eight months in office to prevent terrorist acts, when they now scream bloody murder at the slightest suggestion of profiling at airports, when they accuse Bush of being Big Brother for trying to monitor terrorist communications, when they’ve demonstrated their clear disapproval of any war Bush started abroad to target Al-Qaeda? Are liberals implying that they would have been fine with Bush doing all of these things in a pre-9/11 world? They’re not even fine with The One doing these things in a post-9/11 world.

The left have been digging up examples of localized attacks carried out by truly isolated (not Abdulmutallab-style “isolated”) loonies—such as Bruce Ivins’ anthrax-laced letters to news broadcasters in September 2001, Hesham Hadayet’s shooting of two Israelis at LAX in July 2002, the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002—as proof that Bush didn’t keep us safe. Ignore for the moment that when each of these incidents happened, these same people criticized Bush for using these events to “hype” the threat of terrorism to justify extra security measures. Instead ask: what level of government intervention into our lives would have been necessary to prevent every one of these attacks? And how likely is it that liberals would have supported Bush’s carrying out such interventions?
I'd add, "What action, in the left's eyes, by Obama's administration would best respond to the threats recently posed to our nation?"

No comments: