Writing in Townhall.com, Douglas MacKinnon says that the Lieberman loss in Connecticut, the attempted Al-Quaida plot to blow up airplanes, and other, so far foiled, terrorist plots should send a message to candidates intending to run for President in 2008. He writes:
For a number of people in the business of preventing terrorism, it says the 2008 presidential election has to be about electing the candidate most qualified to ensure the national security of our country. It says that ignorance is far from bliss, and potentially suicidal.
Having an indecisive or weak leader, as unfortunately Israel has today can be a disaster in a crisis. This article and this one are illustrative of the unwillingness of the Prime Minister of Israel to let the IDF(Israel Defense Forces) execute its plan to finish the war with Hezbollah in 10-14 days. He was more concerned about what the international community thought about Israel’s actions than about what it took to succeed. As a result, Hezbollah and the other jihadists in the Middle East no longer consider the IDF to be invincible. This is sure to lead to other attempts to defeat Israel, which would not be the case if Israel had moved to an early ground war, as proposed by the IDF.
MacKinnon’s article is worth reading. Another excerpt:
various discussions I’ve had with friends in the military and intelligence services, one point and worry keeps being repeated. Those in the business of protecting America, whether they agree with all of his policies or not, are grateful to have George W. Bush as president.
Their point in expressing such gratitude is that — like him or not — since Sept. 11, 2001, Bush has committed to hunting down and destroying cowardly terrorists who have not only hijacked a religion but, as we have seen in Lebanon, hijacked whole countries in the name of killing the innocent.
These members of the military and our intelligence services know that, in concert with a number of allies including the United Kingdom, Israel and a few Arab nations, the “Bush Doctrine” is to exterminate the threat before it can once again reach our shores.
While the ACLU and some politicians and members of the media on the left may strongly disagree with a number of the tactics employed, they get to live, thrive and complain under the very blanket of that critically important policy.
With the latest plot exposed to blow up these airliners, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) put out the predictable statement that, “We once again urge law enforcement authorities and elected officials to caution against stereotyping entire religious or ethnic groups based on the alleged actions of individuals.”
It is not stereotyping if these growing threats continue to come from only one source — a minuscule, twisted segment of the Muslim community. It is a fact that law enforcement has to take into consideration.
With this obviously growing threat in mind, the worry of those entrusted to ensure our safety is this: What if the next president of the United States, for political or “moral” reasons, finds the tactics employed by Bush to be abhorrent or uncivilized.
What if the next president, because of his or her own beliefs, or the beliefs of supporters and others in the administration, deems it unseemly or illegal to hunt down and destroy those who mean to decimate our nation.
Republican or Democrat. Liberal or Conservative. Man or woman. The next president of the United States has to carry on the Bush doctrine against terrorism or all of us could pay an unimagined price.