Sarah pointed out that over at EuroPundits, Nelson Ascher grieves at how the war on terrorism has slowed, and that the whiners are winning. In the next post he voices his opinion regarding the election (nine months away), with his own analysis of what will happen if Bush loses.
Just before reading these posts I had been looking at one of the best site available for keeping up with all the facets of the war: The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (top of my International/ Military Links list in the right sidebar). It is an impressive organization, and truly non-partisan. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Chuck Shumer, Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Marc Ginsberg, Donna Brazile, and Zell Miller all have voices in its operation and research. Their mission is:
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies conducts research and education on international terrorism ? the most serious security threat to the United States and other free, democratic nations.
FDD produces independent analyses of global terrorist threats, as well as of the historical, cultural, philosophical and ideological factors that drive terrorism, and which threaten democracies and the individual freedoms guaranteed within democratic societies.
Non-profit and non-partisan, FDD promotes informed debate about policies and positions that will most effectively eradicate the scourge of international terrorism.
In addition, FDD works to improve education about democracies, and to help promote democracy in troubled regions around the globe.
Clifford May makes a case for debate about the war. His points are well-taken. Every time I hear one of the Democrats chasing the presidential nomination, I?m struck by how vague they are on this topic. They basically say, ?We need international support.? I?ve not heard a thing from them more specific.
This concerns me. As Nelson points out, we probably have only 20% of the knowledge of what?s going on that decision-makers have. I would think folks like Kerry and Edwards have about 50% by virtue of their positions in the Senate. That leaves an awful lot they don?t know. Yet they are expected to make promises to get the nomination, and could box themselves into a corner where US security is in jeopardy. That?s one reason to speak in generalities.
We Americans are very self-centered in general. So, it doesn?t surprise me to see polls where the majority believes the economy is the number one issue in the upcoming election. More somber analysis, however, will remind anyone not out on the fringes that US security is what allows us to have an economy. Recent history should be a guide. When Carter was President we had inflation and interest rates through the roof (20% mortgage rates!). ?Stagflation? was the term coined to describe our economy. The Cold War was very active, the USSR invaded Afghanistan, embassy employees were held hostage in Iran. Reagan reversed that with some tough decisions. I remember thinking at the time that somebody had to have a plan beyond the next two years, and there would initially be some pain. There was, but Reagan had a five-year plan, and it resulted in the demise of the Soviet Union and a growing economy.
Bush 41?s success in the Middle East was another boost, quickly offset by his acceptance of a tax increase by Congress, something he had promised not to do. It was a bump in the economic road, but cost him a second term.
Clinton benefited from some fiscal responsibility on behalf of Congress, and the lack of a tangible threat from outside our borders. The threat was there, but not apparent to the average American.
The burst NASDAQ and DOW bubble that came in with Bush 43 was exacerbated by events of 9/11. Markets dipped lower, numerous industries, not the least of them the airlines, were jeopardized. They are back, but you wouldn?t know it to hear the wannabes.
Now, Americans feel more secure. The focus again becomes ME, and a return to normalcy.
It is a false hope. Terrorist networks around the world are rocked back on their heels, but they don’t require much in the way of infrastructure to maintain an organization. The ability to produce such agents as ricin are within the grasp of most people with a basic understanding of chemistry, and this very specific knowledge can be easily passed along. WorldNetDaily features an article claiming bin Laden’s group have obtained nukes. Our intelligence agencies (only American ones, not those around the world who drew the same conclusions) are under fire for not having perfect information on the goings-on inside a totalitarian regime. If our economy is at risk, it is endangered by uncertainty. And there is still plenty of that in the world. The fact that the Super Bowl was played with no terrorist strike isn’t an indicator that the threat didn’t exist.
The primary function of the President of the United States is National Security. The Constitution has no provision for his control or meddling in the economy except in the realm of interstate commerce. In fact, a President has little control over the economy at all except through National Defense.
I want a President who is willing to shoulder that burden, not pass it off to the UN. The only Democrat willing to take that stand, Joe Lieberman, is now out of the race. The others are no choice at all.