Roskam asks Duckworth: How does that work?
A Roskam Press Release dated today over at Illinois Review although it's yet to show up on his site.
WHEATON - One day after a foiled terrorist plot on American airliners departing from Great Britain, Roskam called on his opponent, Democrat Tammy Duckworth, to take a solid position on the Patriot Act and the policies that have protected our nation since September 11th, 2001.And some excellant advice from Daniel Henninger in the WSJ about a question every Republican (Democrat too for that matter) I believe obligated to ask,
[***]
The Patriot Act is one of many issues Tammy Duckworth has been elusive and vague on. In February, Duckworth said she is “torn but would probably vote for the compromise” (Daily Herald, 2/27/06, Patriot Act stirs…”). Duckworth also voiced opposition to terrorist surveillance programs saying “such actions after September 11 were understandable” but added that “it’s a different climate now” (Daily Herald, 2/27/06, Patriot Act stirs…”).
That was unfortunate timing this week for the Lamont Democrats, declaring themselves officially the antiwar party within 24 hours of the Brits foiling an Islamic terror plot to spread thousands of U.S.-bound bodies across the North Atlantic, or perhaps across New York, Boston and Washington as the planes descended. Yes, we know; they support the war on terror but are merely against George Bush's war in Iraq. How does that work?So Duckworth, Bean, Hare... how does that work?
[***]
In a better world, the U.S. war on terror, at its core, would be bipartisan. That world was what Joe Lieberman's politics represented. That world is dead. Democratic support for the Republican administration's plans to fight these terrorists is down to about zero. This means the Democrats must have a plan of their own to defeat terror. Every Republican running for office at every level this fall should force his opponent to describe it. And if they aren't certain about the details, they can call Ned Lamont.
cross posted at Bill Baar's West Side
18 comments:
Will you start playing politics with our security like the Dems?
Not me. I voted Gore Lieberman because I believed Clinton (still do) with this speech and appalled at the way Bush made fun of himself and his smarts.
That went over well with Americns who appreciate self-deprecation, but having lived overseas, I knew this didn't translate at all.
And I feared how it would translate into Arabic.
Bean voted for the Patriot Act renewel by the way, so we know one answer.
Maybe I missed it in your post, but what role did the Patriot Act play in foiling the London plot? Is there any indication that it actually played a role, or does it automatically receive credit for anything that goes right anywhere in the world?
Patriot Act just one part.
What's interesting is the Brits seemed to have no confidence in our ability to keep secrets.
The big question, is as Henninger put it,
Yes, we know; they support the war on terror but are merely against George Bush's war in Iraq. How does that work?
Dems owe voters an explaination.
And if these fellows were waterboarded in Pakistan to get them to talk, Durbin might want to comment too... might remind of Pol Pot, Stalin, and so forth...
...as my kid sits in Healthrow tomorrow with the rest of the Elgin Youth Orchestra for their flight home.
Bill -
I'm not sure how to answer your question, since even Dick Cheney now admits that there was no connection between Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein.
Are we re-reinventing history again?
And, like So-Called Austin Mayor, I'm interested to hear from you how the U.S. "Patriot" Act helped Scotland Yard do it's job better.
In fact, I'm real interested to learn if this particular terrorist attack is even linked to Al Quiada, since the suspected terrorists here were "home-grown" Brits of Pakistani descent from what I understand, whereas the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. The House of Saud, a.k.a. The House of the Bush Family Friends and Business Partners.
Maybe if George Bush was really interested in finding Osama bin Laden, he'd take a break from one of his many vacations, call up his friends in the Saudi royal family, and just ask nicely where Osama is.
Talk about re-inventing history.
The 9/11 terrorists were picked by Al Qaeda because they could get visas by virtue of their Saudi citizenship, where Yemenis, Iranians, etc couldn't. Not because they were sent from central casting by the House of Saud.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, London, Sudan, Minneapolis, etc. - it's not about where they're from, anyway - it's about what they think. Islamic Fascism.
'Against the war in Iraq, but support the war on terror.' How do we extricate ourselves from Iraq while moving toward victory in the war on terror at the same time? Again, How does that work? There has to be a better answer than 'cut and run' or 'Where's Osama?' on the lips of a Democrat somewhere...
This is the new Faux News/RNC talking point trickling down via the Roskam campaign trickling down again to 'pundits,' aka reporter wannabees, people who know how to type. Get scared, you can't vote for Democrats because they bring down U.S. manliness. Clueless.
Keep it up anon...keep it up...
you and the Lamont-Democrats should just keep talking this up.
I have been blowing on a magic anti-terror Patriot Whistle every day since shortly after 9-11. As you have no doubt determined, my Patriot Whistle is obviously responsible for the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States and, more specifically, for foiling the recent London bombing plot.
I am willing to continue sounding my Patriot Whistle if the tax-payers give me just $2 million dollars per year. I am sure that the brave souls on this board who are so willing to surrender others' liberties in order to feel less scared are willing to surrender a few of their dollars to have the ongoing security provided by my magic Patriot Whistle continue.
-----
"There has to be a better answer than 'cut and run' or 'Where's Osama?' on the lips of a Democrat somewhere..."
How about the GOP answer: Continue to throw our fighting men and women into an Iraqi meat-grinder that shows absolutely no sign of improving.
am:
Recent Harris poll showed more than 40% believe their were Iraqi's among the highjackers on 9-11, and more than 75% of them identified themselves as hard R's. Sadly, trying to convince them with logic isn't going to cut it.
I meant "there"
I think the real question that needs to be asked is of Republicans:
Since the Taliban definitely did have a role in 9/11, why do you support a President who pulls American troops out of Afghanistan only to see the Tabliban regain strength?
Why is the President of the United States running away from a fight with Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan?
Because NATO took over... that's the kind of work with allies Kerry campaigned for...
Subscribe to the CENTCOM link. We're doing plenty in Afganistan... all over the middle east and Africa which people don't may much attention too.
Interesting.
So if Americans were replaced by anyone else in Iraq, you would be happy, even if it meant that Al Quaeda came in?
You are fine with Taliban success in southern Afghanistan as long as it is now NATO's problem?
You and I disagree. I believe that defeating the people who attacked us on 9/11 is our highest priority. You believe that we should cut and run and leave the job to somebody else.
This is how it works:
In any war, we have to define the enemy. With regards to terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and 7/7, it seems pretty clear to me that the enemy is not a nation-state.
The enemy is alienated individuals, fueled by a radical ideology under the guise of religious beliefs. Some nation-states are using these alienated individuals for their own purposes, but ultimately this is not a war that will be won by occupying any country.
Moreover, occupying an Arab country without legal and moral justification -- and since Hussein's Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks there is no legal or moral justification -- merely encourages alienated individuals to engage in terrorism.
In fact, the real question should be: how can you support the war in Iraq if you want to eliminate terrorism?
There's lots more to say on this topic. But I'll respect that this is an Illinois blog, and leave my thoughts for some other venue.
...merely encourages alienated individuals to engage in terrorism.
They seem pretty committed to our destruction with our without Iraq.
In fact, the real question should be: how can you support the war in Iraq if you want to eliminate terrorism?
I support the war in Iraq because I believe the enemy is as you said, The enemy is alienated individuals, fueled by a radical ideology under the guise of religious beliefs, and in Iraq we have allies who are not alienated muslims and committed to some kind of Democratic world.
Only a moderate Islam can overcome this radical ideology and we ought to support these brave people where ever, and when ever we can... Iraq was a good place to start.
Bill,
Why do you support a President who withdraws American troops in the face of Taliban aggression?
Aw, he'd support W even if W ate a live baby on Fox "News".
Personally, I hope Skeeter and his/her ilk keep making these kinds of idiotic statements/asking these idiotic questions. Democrats will never win with a "Surrender" platform.
Post a Comment