Friday, September 15, 2006

Why voters question democrat's commitment to national security

A good reason for questioning the Democrat's commitment to national security can be found in a Washington Post article covering the party's latest attempt to come up with some theme for the upcoming elections other than "We Hate Bush".

From the Washington Post, Democrats Meander in a New Direction:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the woman who will become speaker of the House if Democrats get lucky in November, began her weekly news conference yesterday holding up a red-white-and-blue brochure.
"I hope you all received 'A New Direction for America,' " she said.
Her opening statement covered a full range of Democratic issues: fiscal responsibility. The minimum wage. The trade deficit. Student loans. Health care. Energy independence. Social Security. Medicare.

hmm. Something's missing there.

A third questioner pointed out that Republicans have regained the lead on national security. "This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about," Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. "It shouldn't be about national security."

The election should NOT be about national security? Nancy Pelosi, who would be speaker of the house and third in line for the Presidency (which would be hers if the democrats got their way and impeached Bush and Cheney), thinks that National Security is not an issue for the election.

But wait, there's more. Again, from the article:

The California Democrat has been the focus of the GOP attack since her remark last week that capturing Osama bin Laden wouldn't make us safer.
Pelosi was defensive. "I have five children," she said. "Five grandchildren, going on six. And I consider myself the ultimate security mom." By way of clarification, she felt compelled to add: "Democrats are committed to hunting down Osama bin Laden."

So, Possible President Pelosi believes that capturing Osama Bin Laden would do nothing to make us safer. But even so, she wants to commit time, and money, and our troops, to capture him.

Get it -- The democrat leader wants to put our troops in harm's way, and spend valuable tax dollars, and valuable time, for a goal (capturing Bin Laden) that she doesn't think will do ANYTHING to make us safer.

If it won't make us safer, why will democrats waste time, money, and our troops to capture him? Why not use our time, money, and troops to do something that will actually MAKE us safer, like, say, killing terrorists in Iraq where they are all fighting now?

So, given that the leader of the democrats thinks national security shouldn't be an issue, and wants to waste her time capturing Osama when she doesn't think it will make us safer, it appears voters are showing wisdom in doubting whether the democrats truly understand and are committed to our nation's security.

No comments: