Post by Rob W. Case on May 17, 2011 0:50:56 GMT -6
In the rare event that the left does something both useful and successful, that works in the interests of this country, they cannot seem to keep its favorable momentum without putting a damper on it. When we heard two weeks ago the news that Osama Bin Laden was announced dead, there was a gratifying relief expressed throughout the country, in that it provided closure to an era subjected to the threats of public enemy number one. Yes, it was nice to hear that Osama Bin Laden was killed because of all the evil, harm, and destruction he inflicted on thousands of Americans, and the families affected, whose lives were disrupted and had to be permanently readjusted due to the loss. Yet despite the success achieved in that arena, much of how the activist media and the administration are dealing with this success may in fact be opening us up to the possibility of an even greater danger down the road.
For years the liberal Democrat party spent years convincing its left-wing base, Muslims in America, and Muslims abroad that the Bush administration was conducting torture on enemy combatants while acting disrespectful towards the religion of Islam (i.e. hyping news coverage of the flushing of Qurans down the toilet to name one example). They created a wound and irritated it with stories like these, and worked hard to pound it into the minds of Muslims at home and overseas in hopes to assemble a new coalition of voters and pander to it in hopes to win political favor for their side (like installing foot basins in airports, incorporating more CAIR legal policies within American foreign policy), while calling for crass investigations to set in motion possible criminal prosecutions against the Bush administration to win over Muslims who both sympathize and empathize with enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, energize its base in hatred for Bush, but also enrage radical Muslims in America against the Bush administration in hopes to band together and win the 2008 election which ran its platform on change from Bush.
A New Danger?
The problem with today’s Democrat party is that words are used and campaigns are waged to convince people to vote for them, and if or when people do, they forget (or drop) all that they said, because they won and what they told people during the campaign doesn’t matter to them anymore. They do what they want to do from there. Yet, what they don’t realize once the game is over is that people who are not aware of the tactical political moves and power plays being made behind the scenes still go around believing certain things, stewing in their anger, and growing more bold and contemptuous, while (in too many cases) preparing to take action.
Obama’s Osama Problem:
Since the killing of Osama Bin Laden occurred on the watch of a liberal Democrat President using the very methods that he and his party repeatedly decried injustice about and change against for years, what can we expect next? This is how some of the very ones that once pulled the emotional strings of those radical bad guys reacted to news of Osama Bin Laden’s death.
This was from the syndicated Chris Matthews Show that aired Sunday, May 8th, 2011. Chris Matthews was talking to David Ignatius, a reporter of the Washington Post. Here is an excerpt from the transcript.
IGNATIUS: I felt, watching the President Sunday night, that there's an American archetype of the strong, silent person, that person is reticent, but conveys...
MATTHEWS: The cowboy.
IGNATIUS: ... strength.
MATTHEWS: The cowboy. Gary Cooper. Matt Dillon.
IGNATIUS: I saw Obama as a little bit of that cowboy.
Now this is interesting. Obama the cowboy is seen by these activist media guys as a strong, cool, and collective hero, while Bush the cowboy was seen as a reckless, stubborn-headed, imperialist barbarian, heedlessly ignoring potential risk factors before making his foreign policy decisions, or, “blunders” if you will. And since those within the activist media have the loudest mouths, a broader influence, and the most eccentric personalities to carry out their political messages and make them discussion points for days, Al Qaeda leaders, American Muslim radicals, are now faced with seeing the transformation of Obama the defender to Obama the Cowboy which through their perspective, will be seen as both Obama the hypocrite, and (worse), Obama the betrayer.
Although it is most important for any president to do the right thing, one must ask himself this bold question. If Barack Obama has dropped the legal charges against bombing suspects (like he did with the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole), freed many detainees at Guantanamo Bay (some of which returned to terrorism), has made it regulation that American soldiers read Miranda rights to terrorists, discontinued many Bush-era, anti-terrorism policies, and tried to find legal grounds to prosecute the means for which those anti-terrorism measures were targeted, than why actually break international laws (which is something they accused Bush of doing) and approve the killing of Osama Bin Laden at all? After all, if you take a position that works in favor (and to the benefit) of terrorists, and you contradict that position and gloat about it (with the aid of the very activist media that openly damned the means for which the action was accomplished) for political purposes, then what degree of damage could we attract because of that? What type of danger could this country be in if we are sending mixed messages and making decisions that are scatterbrained, double-minded, and contradictoryin action? It is an interesting and unique scenario, and one that I think requires further examination.
For years the liberal Democrat party spent years convincing its left-wing base, Muslims in America, and Muslims abroad that the Bush administration was conducting torture on enemy combatants while acting disrespectful towards the religion of Islam (i.e. hyping news coverage of the flushing of Qurans down the toilet to name one example). They created a wound and irritated it with stories like these, and worked hard to pound it into the minds of Muslims at home and overseas in hopes to assemble a new coalition of voters and pander to it in hopes to win political favor for their side (like installing foot basins in airports, incorporating more CAIR legal policies within American foreign policy), while calling for crass investigations to set in motion possible criminal prosecutions against the Bush administration to win over Muslims who both sympathize and empathize with enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, energize its base in hatred for Bush, but also enrage radical Muslims in America against the Bush administration in hopes to band together and win the 2008 election which ran its platform on change from Bush.
A New Danger?
The problem with today’s Democrat party is that words are used and campaigns are waged to convince people to vote for them, and if or when people do, they forget (or drop) all that they said, because they won and what they told people during the campaign doesn’t matter to them anymore. They do what they want to do from there. Yet, what they don’t realize once the game is over is that people who are not aware of the tactical political moves and power plays being made behind the scenes still go around believing certain things, stewing in their anger, and growing more bold and contemptuous, while (in too many cases) preparing to take action.
Obama’s Osama Problem:
Since the killing of Osama Bin Laden occurred on the watch of a liberal Democrat President using the very methods that he and his party repeatedly decried injustice about and change against for years, what can we expect next? This is how some of the very ones that once pulled the emotional strings of those radical bad guys reacted to news of Osama Bin Laden’s death.
This was from the syndicated Chris Matthews Show that aired Sunday, May 8th, 2011. Chris Matthews was talking to David Ignatius, a reporter of the Washington Post. Here is an excerpt from the transcript.
IGNATIUS: I felt, watching the President Sunday night, that there's an American archetype of the strong, silent person, that person is reticent, but conveys...
MATTHEWS: The cowboy.
IGNATIUS: ... strength.
MATTHEWS: The cowboy. Gary Cooper. Matt Dillon.
IGNATIUS: I saw Obama as a little bit of that cowboy.
Now this is interesting. Obama the cowboy is seen by these activist media guys as a strong, cool, and collective hero, while Bush the cowboy was seen as a reckless, stubborn-headed, imperialist barbarian, heedlessly ignoring potential risk factors before making his foreign policy decisions, or, “blunders” if you will. And since those within the activist media have the loudest mouths, a broader influence, and the most eccentric personalities to carry out their political messages and make them discussion points for days, Al Qaeda leaders, American Muslim radicals, are now faced with seeing the transformation of Obama the defender to Obama the Cowboy which through their perspective, will be seen as both Obama the hypocrite, and (worse), Obama the betrayer.
Although it is most important for any president to do the right thing, one must ask himself this bold question. If Barack Obama has dropped the legal charges against bombing suspects (like he did with the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole), freed many detainees at Guantanamo Bay (some of which returned to terrorism), has made it regulation that American soldiers read Miranda rights to terrorists, discontinued many Bush-era, anti-terrorism policies, and tried to find legal grounds to prosecute the means for which those anti-terrorism measures were targeted, than why actually break international laws (which is something they accused Bush of doing) and approve the killing of Osama Bin Laden at all? After all, if you take a position that works in favor (and to the benefit) of terrorists, and you contradict that position and gloat about it (with the aid of the very activist media that openly damned the means for which the action was accomplished) for political purposes, then what degree of damage could we attract because of that? What type of danger could this country be in if we are sending mixed messages and making decisions that are scatterbrained, double-minded, and contradictoryin action? It is an interesting and unique scenario, and one that I think requires further examination.
