The reality of our times By Tony Blankley - The Democratic Party 'is' picking over the bones of the past for cheap partisan advantage rather than constructive on security.
CB
By Tony Blankley
A few years from now, the current national reporting and commentary will
be seen to be utterly blind to the reality of our times. In the 19 months
since September 11, we have fought two wars and authorized the
reorganization of much of our government. France has arisen in an attempt to
lead the Third World and Europe in explicit oppositionto America. Confidence
in the efficacy of the United Nations has shriveled. NATO is divided and
adrift.
Some significant percent of the one and a quarter billion Muslims have
been heartened by bin Laden's assault on America, and infuriated by our
response. At precisely this inopportune moment in history, the technology of
bioengineering has emerged to place a more lethal force than nuclear energy
in the hand, or near the hand, of any number of lunatics with a fanatical
grudge against us. By any objective measure, we are defenseless to such a
bio-attack, and ludicrously unprepared to respond to the aftermath.
At such a moment, the national media is focused on four national topics:
(1) whether President Bush precisely described the exact level of certainty
he subjectively felt about Saddam's possession of weapons of mass
destruction; (2) whether, two months after major combat has finished, a
country that has not known a semblance of even vaguely representative
government in its 5,000 year history, and whose religious and ethnic
sub-groups are being manipulated by most of its neighbors, is a functioning
democracy - or if there is still some disarray; (3) whether the wife of the
former president has written an accurate memoir; and (4) whether a man in
California killed his wife. We do have a free press. But as Oscar Wilde once
observed, we are overcharged for everything these days.
To add to the sense of unreality, the Democratic Party seems to be
staking the remnants of its national credibility on behalf of the
crack-brained project of trying to convince the public that the most
trusted, straightforward, honest president the country has seen in quite a
while is actually a devious manipulator of mass opinion. Both the Democrats
and the national media would be better advised to focus on the ominous near
future and the policies best designed to cope with it.
For instance, last week, it was reported that President Bush had agreed
to "fully fund" port security programs. By fully fund, the reporter meant
the president had agreed to the added Democratic spending of $58 million.
But, when added to the president's spending proposal that higher figure will
only buy inspection of 2 percent to 5 percent of the containers entering the
country. That is only the percentage of "high risk" containers. But even
established shippers (who are not considered high risk) are highly
vulnerable to penetration by terrorists. The Coast Guard has quietly
suggested that at least ten times the current spending level would be
necessary. But that gets into real money, and might force Congress and the
president to decide whether we need port security more than we need, say,
prescription drug subsidies. No such debate will happen.
Another example: The political system is not even publicly discussing
how to prepare for adequate civil defense measures in the case of a major
terrorist attack. I happened to sit on a panel discussing the topic at the
National Defense College a few weeks ago at Ft. McNair. The experts pointed
out that the same National Guard personnel who state and local law
enforcement are relying on for back-up have a dual function - being called
up by the Pentagon to supplement the active military's responsibilities. The
guardsman can't be at two places at one time. And, given how thinly
stretched our active military is, we can be fairly sure many of the
guardsmen will not be available when we need them. Unless you think
September 11 was a one-time event (and no experts or senior government
officials believe that), we ought to be planning for the inevitable. That
might be a swell topic for the Democrats to champion - but they are busy
making rude slurs about the president.
The president and his advisors should not feel defensive about
constructive criticism of the war on terrorism. As Winston Churchill told
his people at the beginning of World War II, his government will make
grievous errors and blunders that will cost many lives - but they will fight
on to victory. The American people don't expect this government - or any
government - to get every strategy and tactic right. But they would be
greatly heartened by a president who is constantly open to improving and
modifying plans as events and new understanding dictate. A Democratic Party
that made constructive suggestions on how to improve our future security
(rather than pick over the bones of the past for cheap partisan advantage)
would be a truly loyal opposition. And that would eventually pay off at the
polls.
--
CB
I love Tony's wit and sharp intellect The McLaughlin Group
Sundays on PBS 11EST
righ...@nutty.com
>The reality of our times
>By Tony Blankley
>
> A few years from now, the current national reporting and commentary will
>be seen to be utterly blind to the reality of our times.
Your fucking fat little bastard hasn't got a whole lot smarter since he shilled for
your other fat fuck, GIngrich.
Top it off with being a lap-dog for a sham religious cult leader writing for
his off-the-wall right wing rag, you got the makings of comic relief, CBLOON
Not surprising, however, for a racist, homophobic dirtbag like you.
> *******************************************************
>Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore wrote:
>There are niggers in this world. I'd go further and say their evil. The
>only way out of Niggerdom is to repent, stop the vulgarity and accept Christ
>as your Savior.
Billary
NoSur...@never.net
His is a voice of reason and sanity...and he is destined to be
pilloried and insulted by the loonie leftists on this N.G.
Cheerio,
Dennis, Proud American, Irish.