Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Liberal Myopia - Exhibit 5,206

Molly Ivins today managed to write with a (presumably) straight face that all these terror plots are just overhyped nothings upon which Karl Rove and Darth Cheney have built their Prison of Fear. Of course, to do so, she manages to ignore every single serious terror threat that has been thwarted since 9/11, including the very real and very serious failed plot that otherwise would have taken place on this very day. According to her, no serious terror plot has ever been uncovered in this country. ("If, God forbid, a serious terrorist conspiracy is uncovered, there will be a tendency to dismiss it as a backlash to these over-hyped 'plots.'") That, and she had to discount a threat against Canada's Prime Minister because, "Has anyone in all of history ever cared that much about a Canadian prime minister?"

No elitism there.

She posted her column yesterday. I wonder - had our government and the Britons been less vigilant, would she still be laughing in the face of the Islamo-fascist carnage that perhaps at this very moment would be falling out of the skies over the North Atlantic? Would she see the folly of her opinions about the reality of the threat we face?

Of course not. It would all be Bush's fault.

No terror attack? Bush is the evil genius puppet master, personally manipulating all the intel data to scare our votes out of us. Successful terror attack? Bush is incompetent. There's no reasoning with "logic" on this scale. If Bush was the guy Ivins thinks he is, she would be in Gitmo and the planes would have been allowed to be destroyed to "prove" the threat.

Why does anyone think these people should be listened to when it comes to national security? Why would anyone vote for the candidates that are on board with these willfully-nearsighted and un-serious fools?

3 comments:

reddog said...

Safety is the carrot on a stick that Bush uses to entice the American people into support of his transformation of America into a fascist state. There is no mention of safety in the Constitution. Safety was never a priority of the Federalists. Were the pioneers who built this country safe? Are the fighting members of our armed forces safe? Are they to be considered children of a lesser God?

Better to consider how Bush's transformation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Armed Forces into an engine of the suppression of the rights of the American people will affect your life. We may face a threat to our way of life here in America but it doesn't come from the Middle East.

Orrin Johnson said...

Well, they didn't use the word "saftey," but they did use the words, "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." Sounds like they were concerned about security to me.

If this were a fascist state, such as, say, Castro's Cuba (whom I noticed you were pretty sanguine about in your own blog), you would be in jail or worse for what you've writen on your blog. The fact that you seriously think DHS is a greater threat than the Islamofascists is prima facie proof that you simply don't understand the current situation, and thus that your commentary on national security isn't to be taken seriously.

PubliusRex said...

Funny how American leftists decry what they think is our fascist trajectory, all the while playing apoligist for Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

Funny how leftists whine about big brother, but then vote to confiscate firearms.

Anyone who ignores the constitutional fraud of the New Deal and Miranda but whines about the Patriot Act doesn't care about the constitution, they're promoting a political agenda.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Safety? We should not let safety come at the expense of exploration or enterprise, but to needlessly court danger is just silly.