Tenth Anniversary of 9/11: Did opposition to Bush counter-terror strategy undermined American security?
Firefighters know what it is like to risk their lives in order to accomplish something. As a fire chief, you risk the lives of your men in order to rescue the child who is trapped upstairs. The firefighters are willing to run into a burning building because they know how important that child's life is. All parties involved accept this arrangement, especially the child.
This is not acceptable, however, when others may risk not only your life, but also that of your family in order to accomplish something that you do not find justifiable.
Liberals in government and media are so power hungry that they used our counter-terrorism strategies and tactics as an opportunity to destroy their political opponents.
During the George W. Bush years, liberals undermined our counter-terrorism strategy – during a war against terrorists – in order to weaken the administration. It would be one thing if they reversed Bush's wartime strategy when the Obama administration took over in 2009. However, after fighting Bush nearly every step of the way, not much actually changed when they took control.
In fact, they actually doubled down on some of the very tactics that they castigated Bush for.
Victor Davis Hanson cleverly illustrates examples of this at National Review Online:
"… Obama retained Secretary of Defense Gates, stuck to the Bush-Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq, expanded Predator-drone attacks in Waziristan, surged into Afghanistan, bombed Libya, and embraced everything from Guantanamo to renditions."
The motivation behind the switch clearly isn't principle. Neither is it a desire to achieve victory against the jihadists. Liberals weakened the Bush administration by portraying them as a brutal regime violating the civil or human rights of our enemies – to the detriment of our national security – to the point that Bush's political capital was expended and a Republican president was virtually unelectable.
I value my liberty and security more than whether or not my favorite politician is in the White House. If conservatives pulled this sort of stunt, my family would be just as endangered as if a liberal were responsible, so I would be just as upset. So where are all the liberal voices pointing out this dangerous hypocrisy? Are there any? Surely their supporters don't value the liberal agenda more than their own family members.
Hanson illustrates just how absurd the hypocrisy actually is:
"Somehow bloggers and op-ed writers have established by their selective outrage a narrative that it was immoral of Cheney to approve the waterboarding of three confessed terrorists like KSM, but quite moral of Obama to expand fivefold the Predator targeted-assassination program that served as judge, jury, and executioner of suspected terrorists — and of any living thing in their vicinity when the Hellfire missiles obliterated their compounds."
Oddly enough, a majority of voters elected these people. Do we want Democrats in power at all costs, or do we want to retain our liberty and security, regardless of the party affiliation of our government? Let's hope enough Americans consider this when it comes time to vote again.
(Commentary by Chris Carter/Sept. 9, 2011)