Saturday, October 09, 2004

This could come back to haunt Kerry ...

Folks, the test is not if you've added money; the test is that you've done everything possible to make America secure.

Now, I will admit that, on the surface, this was legit -- a good response to the President's equating increased security with increased spending.

However, when this comes from Kerry, it can't be considered credible.

First, it is a unique position for a Democrat to take ... In virtually every other area of public policy, Democrats consistently equate increased program funding and progress ... and as Kerry does (his statements on "No Child Left Behind" is one example), equate a refusal to increase funding with an uncaring refusal to solve problems.

Kerry just took the conservative (and common-sense) position on government spending -- effective homeland security is NOT directly tied to funding.

While I do criticize the President for making the statement he did, his other actions indicate to me that he does understand the difference between spending and solutions. (Maybe he was putting our efforts into language Kerry, as a Democrat, would understand?)

The Undertaker, however, just opened the door for the President and others to apply this same test to every other area of government involvement ! That could lead to significant embarrassment of the Democrats and their allies ... and real progress in solving the problems we face (assuming the President wins re-election).

Second, a purely-defensive, homeland-based interdiction strategy will not resolve the problem of terrorism. Kerry persistently subscribes to the fallacy that, if you look for the tools evil men use, you can stop their evil. The problem is, such a strategy demands that the interdiction efforts be not only seamless in coverage, but flawless in execution -- from now, until the end of time.
The cost -- not only in dollars for equipment, but in decreased efficiency in doing business -- is simply not sustainable over the long term ... and even if we spent everything Kerry suggests we should , and more, it will NEVER provide near 100% security. And, it is ludicrous for someone who is worried about elements of the Patriot Act to demand security systems that can be far, far more BigBrotheresque than the stereotypical John Ashcroft (as opposed to the real one).

Look at what happened on 11 September 2001. We looked for weapons -- and the terrorists found a way around the screening. We have changed the screening -- but the terrorists will study the changes, and change their tactics to (sooner or later) get around it. A sole reliance on screening systems to thwart the efforts of a determined and innovative enemy is as futile as the Maginot Line (even if you take away the fact that the Maginot Line was manned by the French).

What Kerry is suggesting is that we spend ourselves to economic death, while possibly increasing authoritarian intrusiveness to levels that would make Orwell spin at several thousand RPM in his grave ... all in a futile effort to protect ourselves.

He is letting the terrorists win, by putting the burden for change on the potential vicitims, not the perpetrators.

(Or, was this just another crass attempt to smear the President for not soaking the rich? I don't think so ...)

The heroes of United Flight 93, however, showed us another way to win ... instead of resigning themselves to their fate, they took the fight to the hijackers ... they made the perpetrators change, before they achieved their objective. You could say that these heroes PRE-EMPTED the fourth plane attack!

The Undertaker is, IMO, excessively averse to any preemptive activity -- he prefers to wait until there are already dead bodies in our streets, despite his rhetoric.

His history as a nuclear-freeze/Sandinista-friendly Senator, his insistence on a "Global Test:" (coupled with his deference to the leaders of Old Europe that opposed our actions in Iraq), and even his complaint that new nukes in American hands inherently invalidates our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation among thugs -- all point to this aversion to strong American action against even known threats. His obsession with getting bin Laden, while selectively diminishing terrorist supporters like Saddam & Sons, is indicative of the September 10 mindset that has more fear of an American mistake ... than of terrorist intent.

I will agree with the Undertaker, that we could do more to improve Homeland Security -- like really securing our borders, which he is "strangely" silent about.

However, we must not cut off our nose to spite our face ... we must be SMART when it comes to Homeland Security, and not just throw a big blanket of government intrusion and interference across the problem. To do what the Senator proposes, we would have to search not only every container on every ship -- with no misses -- but we would have to search every Ryder truck on the road on a regular basis ... which is not feasible.

Part of a smart effort, is making the perpetrators change ... instead of placing all that burden on free people ... before more bodies fall in our streets.

Terrorists must no longer be able to set their agenda ... the time and place of their attacks against us. We must change their agenda for them, and compel them to keep at least one eye out FOR us, instead of keeping both eyes upon what they want to do TO us.

This, combined with a reasonable homeland-defense effort, will deny the terrorists the ability to achieve objectives of any significance ... we will be able to kill the fanatics BEFORE they kill us, and diminish to insignificance the resolve of the less-than-fanatic who might otherwise follow in their footsteps.

There is a candidate for President that has already been doing that, even as he has improved (though not completely) homeland security. His name is George W. Bush ... and he is different from John F. Kerry in not just name, and not just ideology ... but in credibility,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?