Peace Like A River


It was a wide river, mistakable for a lake or even an ocean unless you'd been wading and knew its current. Somehow I'd crossed it... Now I saw the stream regrouped below, flowing on through what might've been vineyards, pastures, orhards... It flowed between and alongside the rivers of people; from here it was no more than a silver wire winding toward the city. - Leif Enger, Peace Like A River

Friday, December 16, 2005

What can be done?

Today, the Senate Defeatocrats, and 4 quivering Republican noodles as their aides-de-camp, filibustered the extension of the Patriot Act, thereby all but ensuring the Act will expire at the end of the year.

Hugh Hewitt's post said they went Ahab. If we're speaking of crazy captains, when it comes to national security, the Defeatocrats are more like Captain Queeg, rolling (their lost) marbles in their hands and blathering on about government snoops stealing their strawberries. Such is their paranoia about enabling our government to protect us.

On his radio show today Hewitt talked to Senator John Kyl.

Kyl pointed out the loose-bowel Defeatocrats who voted against this had no idea what they were voting against.

HH: 202-225-3121 is what connects you to Capitol Hill. 202-225-3121. What reasons...what did they want? Because this was a compromise act already, Senator Kyl.

JK: Yes, but what they told us, and I think this is true...first of all, most of them didn't know what was in the conference report. We had made so many compromises in here, I almost didn't sign the conference report. But they can't tell you, the people who voted no can't really tell you what they'd do differently.


But, Kyl also got it exactly right when he said the Defeatocrats filibustered this because they felt no political pressure to vote for the Patriot Act.

I think that the people on the other side did not feel any political threat from casting the vote that they cast. And until the American people rise up and let them know that we will not stand for this, I don't think they're going to change their vote.
....
So right now, they feel that they're on the side of the people. And until the people say no, no, no, we want you to protect us, the Patriot Act is a good thing, they're not going to feel the political pressure to change.


When it comes down to it, what has the Defeatocrat's anti-war position really cost them? And I mean today. Certainly it may have kept them out of the White House, but what price are they paying today for their defeatism and constant attacks on President Bush, and now this, during a time of war?

Unless and until more people in this country realize what we are truly facing, we are not going to be unified as a country in facing this threat of radical Islam.

Michelle Malkin had a post linking to some of the talk on the Left these days. (And don't miss her post about Chicken Littles. See Vox Taciturn for some good commentary on the topic as well.)

How are we to combat that? With that as their base, the Defeatocrats see no reason not to filibuster the Patriot Act.

It feels like not only are we fighting the Islamic murderers, we're fighting too many of our own at home.

Have we forgotten how we felt on September 11?

9 Comments:

  • At Fri Dec 16, 11:59:00 PM, hammerswing75 said…

    "Have we forgotten how we felt on September 11?" Yes. Many, if not most, Americans have forgotten and it wasn't a four year process. The first anniversary hadn't past before millions were jumping ship. It's our responsibility to keep reminding people. You're doing a good job of it.

     
  • At Sat Dec 17, 08:15:00 AM, johngrif said…

    MSM Saturday morning tV shows were graced (at that early hour!) by the presence of Dick "Gulag" Durbin. You do remember him?

    'America is worse than Communist Russia or Nazi Germany' with its 'gulag' handling of terrorists, was Durbin's claim to fame.

    It's good to see this (now) loyal American concerned about 'spying.' Al Qaeda Terrorism and murder don't faze him.

    Durbin is someone I WOULD spy on. In fact, I might want to vote AGAINST his citizenship and that of anyone who supports him.

     
  • At Sat Dec 17, 09:39:00 AM, Karlo said…

    You're absolutely right. You need to hand over all your Constitutional rights to stop some Middle Eastern wackos armed with mace and dynamite. I'm sure that the ability to check your library records are fundamental to the war on terror. Just don't hand over my rights. And don't take a penny of my money to pay people to spy on me. If I catch anyone snooping around my life thinking they're on some frickin' government mission, I can guarantee that I'll plant them six feet under if it's in my power to do so.

     
  • At Sat Dec 17, 01:34:00 PM, Jeff said…

    Notta, those are amusing. Yep, I'd say those purple fingers are Bush's fault.

    In Bush's remarks this morning he said the people under surveillance were those in contact with known links to terrorists.

    I haven't called any terrorists lately. What do I have to worry about?

    Also, Bush said "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This was not done in a vacuum.

    As for library books, is there one single case of a government employee snooping around someone's library records for fun? For blackmail? For whatever?

    Debate over privacy rights is certainly valid, but with terrorists hiding among us, plotting, why are we so eager to blind ourselves? If someone comes at us on a plane with a boxcutter, a library book isn't going to stop him.

    Can't we avoid making it easy for the terrorists to do their planning here?

     
  • At Sat Dec 17, 05:24:00 PM, Karlo said…

    Check out the most recent post on my site: http://swerveleft.blogspot.com. Similar stories seem to be popping up weekly. My feeling is that the capacity for abuse far outweighs the usefulness of such intrusions. Of course, you're right in one sense. If we simply installed a fascist government (the direction we're headed) and gave up all our rights, our country (for all it would be worth) would be much stronger. If strength is the goal, we should jettison every right we have to further strengthen the Fatherland. At any rate, your faith in a government secretly working away from civilian oversight astounds me. To find such similar levels of faith, I'd have to surf the net for some old Stalinist hold-overs.

     
  • At Sun Dec 18, 10:45:00 AM, johngrif said…

    Karlo, you're an absolute peacemonger.

     
  • At Sun Dec 18, 06:54:00 PM, Jeff said…

    A lack of civilian oversight? Who would qualify as "civilians" The Bush Administration is made up of civilians. The congressional leaders they consulted on the matters revealed recently are civilians. The Attorney General and judges that review what is required to be reviewed are civilians.

    The nature of the operations involved, the secrecy, dictate that the government and intelligence agencies don't go running to the media to get approval for such things. There is oversight.

    As for your post, some things about that seem a bit strange. Apparently this is all came from a student who remains anonymous? And the article says the student didn't even talk to the paper. This is coming second hand through some professors. (Remind me again what the policy on anonymous sources is? Bad when when it involves Bush Administration officials talking about Joe Wilson, good when students are talking about Homeland Security?)

    Does it not seem odd that government agents care that someone checked out Mao's book? They really have nothing better to do? The book has been around since, what, the 1950s? It's hardly a little known book. The government is really keeping tabs on it?

    I'd sure like to see something more substantial than an anonymous college student's word on what happened.

     
  • At Mon Dec 19, 09:23:00 AM, Karlo said…

    These stories are becoming more and more common. About a month back there was the story of a student who was visited in school after putting a thumbs-down picture next to Bush (the developer at the photo store turned him in).

     
  • At Mon Dec 19, 09:30:00 AM, Jeff said…

    I believe the Secret Service is legally obligated to investigate threats against the President, even verbal throwaway utterances. Perhaps the photo store case fell under that.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home