| September 2003 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | ||||
to Last Thursday’s post. I heard from political observer Michael Graham, who has a great article on this subject:
I happily told the listeners, I am ready to sign up for it. So just call me and tell me your plan for peace that leaves Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, and I’ll finally get to be baptized into the wonderful world of peace.The phones rang off the hook.
My first caller, a very nice lady from a small town in Ohio, said that attacking Saddam was wrong, and that her plan for peace was to pray. That’s it, I asked? Just … pray.
The second caller, from Cincinnati, Ohio, agreed. She had family in the military and they didn’t deserve to die in a war for oil. Prayer was her plan, too.
I started to get nervous perhaps we had accidentally crossed frequencies with the Bible Broadcasting Network.
The third caller, Steve from Dayton, Ohio, was cursing, not praying. President Bush is a [expletive deleted], he’s just fighting his daddy’s war, and he has no right to overrule the United Nations!
OK, I said, great George W. Bush sucks. Got that message. Checked it off. Now, what’s the plan for peace, Steve?
Silence. Uh, I just don’t think we should go to war.
But Steve, we’re at war now. What’s your plan to end the war?
More silence. I don’t know what you …
The war? You know, the one that started in 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center? The war with 3,000 American civilian casualties in one day? The war that is targeting American civilians here at home, American journalists in Pakistan, American soldiers in Kuwait and American diplomats in Jordan? That war. You’ve heard something about it, I hope?
Yeah, I mean, right, Steve stammered. All we can really do about that is …
If you say pray, I interrupted, I’m going to become the first peace activist to kill someone with his bare hands.
No, we can hope for new leadership in the Middle East that will change their attitudes about us.
Yeah. Right.
Read the whole thing.
Dean’s website contains a discussion of his approach to homeland security:
In addition to increased military, intelligence and police focus on offensive operation against terrorists – and with increased support and cooperation of our allies – the Dean Plan is built around three circles of defense:
- a circle of preparation and response to ensure that the resources are available immediately at the local and state level to enable first-responders to mitigate the effects of any future attack and cope with the consequences of such an attack without compromising our civil liberties;
- a circle of protection to defend our critical infrastructure and borders;
- a circle of prevention, in cooperation with Russia and our allies, to reduce the chances that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will fall into the hands of terrorists or states that mean us harm and to promote the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in societies that have heretofore been breeding grounds for terrorists.
This is hardly a plan for security. It’s a plan that explicitly anticipates the reverse. Dean’s vision is of the U.S. in the same position as Israel, suffering regular attacks.
There’s little here about preventing such attacks. Let’s start with the first sentence: “In addition to increased military, intelligence and police focus on offensive operation against terrorists—”. Increased? Dean opposes everything we’re doing now. In what way would he increase these efforts? And ”...with increased support and cooperation of our allies”—how’s he going to make that happen?
What’s more, these circles Dean talks about don’t exist. Everyone knows that there are too many targets in America—critical infrastructure and otherwise—to defend them all.
Dean’s points one and two are devoted to his planned response to future attacks on American soil. Again we ask: what is the left’s plan to prevent such attacks? What would the left do to prevent another 9-11?
Last Thursday’s post was honored by a link from Blogosphere leader InstaPundit. The comments on that post were informative. They’re available here. A few excerpts:
...The left’s “plan” for combating terrorism is to appease until it hurts.
Posted by nonya at September 4, 2003 11:05 AMThe worst argument offered by the anti-liberation crowd…: “Osama would never accept anything from Saddam, money or weapons.”
...Desite their belief in Al Qaeda’s aversion to Iraq, recall that they somehow simultaneously expected a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and huge sympathy from the Arab street.
...They had common goals: to elevate Arabs and Dar al Islam, to attack Israel, to attack America, to attack the West. This is a stronger by far than their differences, especially considering Saddam’s representatives may have shown sincere religious fervor, winning over the fundamentalists.
Whether or not Saddam would ever have attacked us directly, his banned weapons represented a risk, a huge risk, of war by terrorist proxy. It wouldn’t take another jet airliner attack to kill thousands.
Posted by http://bleeding heart conservative at September 4, 2003 11:36 AMDr. Howard Dean has a comprehensive three circle plan of defence.
1. a circle of preparation and response to ensure that the resources are available immediately at the local and state level to enable first-responders to mitigate the effects of any future attack and cope with the consequences of such an attack without compromising our civil liberties;
2. a circle of protection to defend our critical infrastructure and borders;
3. a circle of prevention, in cooperation with Russia and our allies, to reduce the chances that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will fall into the hands of terrorists or states that mean us harm and to promote the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in societies that have heretofore been breeding grounds for terrorists....You can find a comprehensive discussion of Dean’s proposals at http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_homelandsecurity
Posted by Hipocrite at September 4, 2003 11:51 AM...Dr. Dean seems to want to treat terrorist attacks like that are netural disasters like hurricanes or tornados. Be prepared, bury the bodies efficiently, get the elecric power and the sewers back running, don’t let them get nukes cause that would make more bodies and devastate more infrastructure.
This is a contrast from Bush’s plan which attacks root causes of Islamist terror by killing Islamofascists.
Posted by Buck Smith at September 4, 2003 12:09 PM...I have read Dean’s plan and basically find that is a RESPONSE to terrorism, not how to fight terrorists.
Posted by lancer at September 4, 2003 01:37 PMThe Left’s plan for combatting terrorism? Simple:
Surrender.
That, to paraphrase Tolkein, one needn’t wield a sword to die on one has never occurred to them.
Posted by furious at September 4, 2003 04:28 PM
We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
Bingo.
To Dean’s following, the moment he stood out from the pack is when he stood up against the war. Opposition to the war in Iraq seems every bit as important to Dean’s campaign as opposition to the Vietnam War was to George McGovern’s successful bid for the Democratic nomination in 1972.
Isn’t it just about time that the left was asked what its plans are for combating terrorism?
The left doesn’t want us in Iraq, where we are bringing the fight right to the terrorists’ own backyard? Okay – what’s their plan?
There’s never a word from the left about how to fight terrorism. They can’t get enough of saying Iraq wasn’t “imminently” going to attack us. (I guess if Iraq was going to help nuke us in a couple of months we were supposed to leave Hussein in peace.) They can’t get enough of complaining that Bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet. Etc. etc. Okay—what’s their plan? How would they fight terrorism? What would they do to prevent another 9-11?
Why is it the left never gets questioned on this? Is it possible that no reporter on earth can imagine asking Dean or Kerry this question?
The Writers Guild of America is releasing a new ad campaign to promote awareness of the contribution of the screenwriter to films.
”...I’m thrilled, I think it’s a terrific idea,” Goldman said telephone from New York. The author of several books on screenwriting, who won his second Oscar for adapting “All the President’s Men” into a screenplay, Goldman hopes the billboards will bring more visibility to writers. “It’s gotta help. Everybody always thinks that all the directors have the visual concepts and the actors make up all their lines.”
This is well-deserved and even long overdue. Next time you look at any movie review, count how many lines describe the story. You’ll find that every time, the vast majority of it is reviewing the story—the script.
It’s even bigger than that. Most movies get funded when the script attracts a cast and a director.
to have been blogrolled by Moxie, one of the best diarist-bloggers on the Net. Thanks Moxie!
