That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.

Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.

By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?

Let’s give President Bush credit for coming up with an aggressive plan to go after terrorists where they live rather than prosecuting them where we live. President Bush’s is to go after them where they live. President Clinton’s policy was to prosecute then where we live after they’ve killed innocent Americans. Which like the better policy of protecting us?

More importantly, which policy kept us safer?

Col. Peters made a great point in debunking the first whopper. He asked where the proof is. That’s what I’m asking evertime that Democrats repeat their mantra that we can’t drill our way out of this oil crisis. Where’s their proof of that? They don’t offer any because it doesn’t exist.

Here’s the whopper that’s most powerful to me:

Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who’ve rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who’ve smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn’t take long to figure out that Tehran’s foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.

The people of Iraq don’t intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?

The next time you hear or read a Democrat spouting their talking points, ask yourself what their proof is. Better yet, write editorials asking them what proof they have for their allegations, whether it’s about oil, the Middle East or whichever subject they’re talking about.

I said during the 2006 campaign that Pelosi and Reid were utterly incompentent. Now I have proof. That’s why I’ve given them the nickname of the ‘No Solutions Congress’. When I asked King yesterday what the 110th Congrss’s signature accomplishment was, it took him a few seconds before he said “I suppose the Minimum Wage Bill”, which I agree with. The thing is, that didn’t pass the first time. It passed the second time because they included it in the Iraq supplemental bill. Some accomplishment. By comparison, eight of the ten items in the Contract With America are now law.

The proof is in the pudding. It’s time we realized that Democrats haven’t made much ‘pudding’ lately. (Thankfully.)

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply