Remember right after 9/11 how jumpy we were with each fire and explosion that was reported on the news. We knew that is was an inevitable that the terrorists would strike again and the only question was when and how. Yes, more than five and a half years later, there has been no terrorists attacks on U.S. soil. Some will point to other terrorist attacks abroad, but that even more emphasizes the point that, while terrorists are still effective in other, smaller countries, they have been unable to do another attack in the huge target that is the U.S. — even when, as many argue, terrorists hate us more than ever. So, what’s changed since that first attack?
- We’re in numerous messy wars with no end in sight.
- We have an odd and incoherent homeland security.
- Our border situation is out of control.
- The President is hugely unpopular.
Obviously, the only conclusion is that these are the ingredients to an effective defense against terrorism.
|
Some may mock that conclusion, saying that President Bush’s action have contributed to the risk of terrorism and that it’s pure luck America hasn’t been attacked again. That’s an idiotic conclusion, though. President Bush has been batting a thousand in the area of terrorism and we have no idea how many curve balls he has been thrown. To argue that it’s luck is like arguing that Mount Rushmore is a natural geological occurrence. The only logical conclusion is that President Bush has purposely orchestrated a effective strategy against terrorism that none of us has the wisdom to understand.
Yes, it seems counter-intuitive, and many “terrorism experts” will argue that much of what President Bush has accomplished — such as the border problems — has increased the risk of terrorism, but ask yourself this: Who is the only actual terrorism expert? Who is the only one with experience of effectively stopping terrorism on U.S. soil? No one other than President Bush fits that description; everyone else is just a blow hard on that issue. If anyone, Democrat or Republican, says he can be more effective in fighting terror, ask him, “How do you improve on ‘no terrorism’? Are you going to get the terrorist to come over here and bake us yummy cakes?” We currently have a so far a flawless stratagem against terrorism, and anyone who argues to change it is arguing suicide. If a Presidential candidate says, “I will end the war and unite the public behind me,” he might as well add, “and get us all killed by terrorists.”
It’s popular to be against the President right now, but if you think the most important job of the federal government is national security (because, without that, we have nothing) then you can’t argue anything other than President Bush has been one hundred percent effective in office since 9/11. You may not like the policies or like him, but, unless an attack succeeds on our soil, you have to say that what he has done has worked despite your objections. I still don’t like President Bush, though, but I don’t think he wants me to like him… and he obviously knows what he’s doing.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as “Mustaches and Muttonchops: A Ranking of U.S. Presidents Based on Facial Hair” and “1000 Uses for a Dead Terrorist: A Rainy Day Fun Book”.
Since you put it that way, I guess I’ll vote for him in 2008.
GOP leadership
Here is my list of key senators for the vote on amnesty. Cloture failed 45-50 so they need 15 votes to get cloture. I’ve put senators into tiers based on who is likely to break off. First off I’ll mention the four dems that I think are legitimately against the bill who I do not think will break: Webb D-VA, Tester-MO, Bryd-WV, and Dorgan D-ND. I saw Webb on Lou Dobbs and he wasn’t being intransigent about the bill like some, but you could tell he disliked it. He said people who came here recently need to be deported. There are some Republicans who already were voting for cloture so their votes won’t hurt us anymore than they have. They are the usual suspects: Graham-SC, McCain-AR, Hagel-NE, Lugar-IN, Martinez-FL, Voinovich-OH, and Specter R-PA. Now to the people who need to peel of in order to pass Shamnesty.
Tier 1:
There are six senators voting for against cloture who also voted against the Cornyn. This means they are weak votes against cloture. They are Bingaman D-NM, Craig R-NM, Boxer D-CA, Domenici R-NM, Pryor D-AR, and Sanders I-VT. I don’t think any of these six senators oppose legalization, and can all be peeled off easily. Add 6 to the 45 and we’re up to 51 for cloture.
Tier 2:
Now there were some senators who voted against Cornyn but they probably did so for political reasons rather than principal. These were Baucus-MT, Landrieu D-LA, Rockefeller D-WV, McCaskill D-MO. One can assume that Reid can also maneuver these senators’ votes to whatever he likes. That brings the running total to 55 votes for cloture.
Tier 3:
Ok, we have 10 more votes for cloture so far, and that gets us to 55. Dems need five more. Lastly there are the squishy senators who I think could change based on what they have said or indicated. This possibly includes Brownback although he voted for the Cornyn amendment so I think he may be trending to the right on this issue nonetheless he is squishy. The senators who could break based on what they have said in the past besides Brownback are basically the GOP leadership: McConnell, Lott, and Kyl. That would bring the running total to 59 votes for cloture.
That gets you to 14 more votes for cloture, and one vote shy of the 15 more votes need. So where would the last vote come form? How about Lyn Cheney substituting in from Wyoming to break the tie? Just a random though. Or could they get Tim Johnson in there to vote? Or maybe the usual suspect moderates will betray us even though there is no obvious reason to think they would on this issue- Susan Collins R-ME, Norm Coleman R-MI, Murkowski R-AK, Stevens R-AK, Warner R-VA. Probably the most likely suspect in this group who I have seen an indication they would jump ship is Stevens from Alaska since he made a statement a while back he wanted legalization.
If the all of the GOP leadership, Brownback and Stevens all jumped ship that would give the dems a hair of a victory.
Frank, you have to go over to Hot Air & listen to Michelle’s awards & better yet Dennis Miller’s wonderful rant about that a**hole Reid. You won’t be disappointed. By the way, pretty good piece on the President.
Besides, if he can drive the DemoCRAPs this batty, he must be doing something Right.
Fred Thompson can get the terrorists to come over and bake us yummy cakes.
Fred Thompson can get the terrorists to come over and bake us yummy cakes.
Hmm…
On one hand we have our best and most noble people fighting and sometimes dying in wars far from home, at great expense, and who knows what Bush has traded for support from Mexico (like amnesty etc.), and more unsavory bargains with the Kennedies etc. etc … with no end in sight…
versus
Losing a slimy self-righteous Liberal crammed Democrat or RINO run city to a nuke resulting in a world-wide Conservative backlash against the Leftists…
Tough choice.
It’s a funny piece, but it also illustrates the most important thing about the President: He gets it. You’re absolutely right; without national security, we have nothing. That’s why I support him, and why I don’t care what any smelly hippie says. It’s also why I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or John McCain for President. They all get it. Everything else is trivial in comparison.
Beo: Yeah, but Fred Thompson makes terrorists prematurely explode even if they don’t have explosives strapped to them just by him being in their presence.
Fred Thompson is Chuck Norris’ biological daddy.
He willed it so.
“Are you going to get the terrorist to come over here and bake us yummy cakes?”
Frank!
Apparently, you have not read through the ‘Iraq Study Group’s’ report! For if you would have read through that report, you would have easily understood that the only way to win the war against terror is by either inviting the terrorists here to the US to eat yummy cakes with us or by going there to eat yummy cakes with them. It’s totally asanine to think that you can win over the hearts and minds of the enemy with guns and not a single yummy cake. But you have fallen for the Bush propoganda. You say you are not sure if the President likes you or not. Did you ever think that perhaps if you would invite him over for a few yummy cakes instead of knocking him all the time, maybe he would like you. Right now, I’m kind of pissed off at you. I think I’m gonna have a few yummy cakes to calm me down. Care to join me?
Okay, I take back the last part of my previous comment. You didn’t say the President doesn’t like you. You said you don’t like the President. But that just proves my theory. When was the last time you or the terrorists ever received a yummy cake from the President? Get my drift……. Now where did I put those yummy cakes….hmmm…..never seem to be able to remember where I left them…Darn it!