Kevin's Retort!

You are arguing against a straw man, because I did not say the dems support weakening national security. They oppose policies that would strengthen it because they do not understand what we face, and they suffer from Bush/Rove derangement syndrome.

The fact is that the democratic leadership in both houses of Congress has opposed every single anti terror initiative that President Bush has proposed. Every one. Remember "we killed the Patriot act"? I do. I like debate too. Calling President Bush a fascist over an NSA program that Clinton first set up is not debate, it's just idiocy and derangement and displays an ignorance of history and what fascism is. You want fascism, wait and see the police state we live in when we get nuked. I think all of these questions should be debated at length. But I seriously question the priorities of people who internally forbade the use of the phrase "war on terror" then reversed it when the press got wind of it. What is there to debate? They think we are trying to catch criminals, I think our survival is at stake.

And when they called called on it, their gut reaction is "you are questioning my patriotism." I am questioning their judgment. You've told me you oppose NSA, waterboarding, Gitmo, foreign interrogations -- tell me what you will do. If we capture a leader of a terror group and we believe he knows of a plot, are you seriously going to give him a lawyer when he asks for one?

Everyone says they practice special teams. The proof is in the pudding. Bill Clinton and George W Bush did NOTHING to stop terroism before 9/11, and we were consistently attacked every couple of years. We changed course after 9-11, and while we have not always beene right, the idea of being proactive versus reactive is one I still support. I believe that the democrats, in the main, do not. Maybe they are right, but I believe that they are wrong

I really don't care what Dem websites say -- I mean, they want to get elected. What do they do? In any event, the DLC, which has some solid members to it, hardly represents the nancy pelosi (3rd in line to the presidency) wing of the party, and you know that better than I do.

I believe they have opposed Bush because of an irrational hatred of him and an inability or unwillingness to face up to what we are dealing with. It is much easier to worry about what the temperature will be in 2087 than to deal with the gathering Islamic fanatic storm. That is why I believe that the near and long term security of the US depends upon a Democrat being elected president in 2008. The entire public, which includes the Bush hating Left and the rank and file Dems who misunderstand the islamic threat in a way you do not, that jihad is not a result of failed Bush policies, and not a result of poverty, but a going on 40 year conflict based on an ideology that will stop at nothing short of complete destruction of the West and conversion too sharia.


Sure Fox News covers it. Those people want to close Gitmo, but only McCain says we should right now. And all he would do is move the same operation with soldiers etc to Middle America and put a bullseye on leavenworth. No thanks. The fact is we cannot, and nor will Hillary. More people have died in custody at Graterford in 2007 that at Gitmo since it opened. The idea of what is considered "torture" is a joke. That serious people discuss 50 degree interrogation rooms or loud music as torture is evidence that we are in the infancy of a struggle that will get a whole lot worse before it gets better. People conflate abuses at Abu with Gitmo, where there have been no verified abuses unless you count the fact that there are no free weights in the gym and the soccer field is less than regulation sized,

PS -- i watch O'reilly about every two weeks, because I don't have time -- I always catch Dennis Miller's segments on the web. I'd watch O'reilly every night if I had time.

We need a longer time slot at breakfast to hash this stuff out! Maybe a golf outing?