In this scene in an otherwise fine movie Douglas, as President of the United States, is chairing a meeting of his top advisors. America has been attacked. The President approves a plan to strike the Intelligence Headquarters of the enemy where they planned the attack on us. But he fine tunes our attack in response to make sure he hits the building late at night when only a skeleton crew will be on duty to minimize the casualties. His advisors swoon. Oh, he's so caring! We must issue a press release about his courage. The President demurs: this is the most difficult decision I've made. Somewhere tonight a janitor's life is going to end without him knowing why and I hate that I had to do it.
Liberals apparently love this scene as an example of courageous leadership. He had to strike, but he minimized the casualties. In fact, it's based on a real life example. After uncovering an Iraqi plot to kill ex-President Bush, Bill Clinton ordered a strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters at midnight for the same reason. Oh, he's so courageous and caring!
I personally hate this scene and what it represents. I always want to throw a shoe at the screen and yell "No, that's not the right response!" What did the janitor do to us? How effective was it to kill him and to blow up an empty building? Do you think that would deter a future attack? It's ridiculous. It's all style over substance. A worthless "message". The right thing to do, if you're going to strike the Headquarters where the attack on us was planned, is to hit it in the daytime and take out the actual leaders who did the planning. That's effective.
But liberals, who hate the use of force even when it's justified and necessary, mistake what fake President Douglas and real President Clinton did for courage.
John Kerry reminds me of that misunderstanding of courage and of the use of force to defend us.
I'm not going to take much space to comment on John Kerry's speech to accept his nomination and close out the Democratic National Convention. I'll just say this. It was a complete mess. Poorly delivered. An incoherent theme. No vision. All slogans. This was his first big test as a candidate and he failed it. He had a month to write the speech and this awful thing was what he delivered.
However, one line of the speech that deserves commenting on came in a section where Kerry was trying to make the case that he could be trusted with homeland security. He said essentially this:
...any attack on America will be met with a swift and certain
response.
Really? You're going to wait for an attack? Senator Kerry, you still don't get it.
The most drastic thing that George W. Bush changed about American policy after 9/11 was that we were no longer going to wait for an attack on America and then treat it like a crime. We were going to take the fight to those who are planning to harm us and treat it like a war. Stop them before they attack us. That was a monumental shift in policy and it came through leadership.
Kerry has not caught up to the change. He'll wait for an attack. Then he'll send the cops over to take fingerprints for a trial. Maybe send a missle or two into an empty tent. If the U.N. and France approve of it, of course.
There is a clear choice in this election:
The future - George W. Bush - who lead a paradigm shift and is taking the fight to the terrorists.
The past - John Kerry - who will wait for an attack.
You choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment