It's been a good long while since the Democrats were thought to be strong on national security. In fact, the last Democrat who was strong on national security was probably Lyndon Johnson, and the Democrats hated him for it. Somehow they always manage to take the side of the security threat rather than our security. Some would say there's a sinister plot afoot. Maybe there is. Maybe the Democrats, like Bill Clint0n, have been taking too much money from foreign sources interested in keeping the oil profits flowing into their countries, and so they now can't be very tough on rogue oil-producing nations like Iran and Venezuela. After all, our Democrats appear to agree more and more with the political platforms of the leaders of countries like Venezuela and China, not to mention France, Germany and the rest of the European Union. But I think they're just looking for political points. As Ronald Reagan once said, and forgive me if I don't get the quote exactly right, "The world's second oldest profession (politics) is beginning to look a lot like its first." Opportunism is rampant among both parties, but the Democrats take it to an anti-American extreme.



Now, out comes the sage Senator from New York, the dis-Honorable Hillary Clinton. She blames the Bush Administration for making the US less safe over the six years he's been in office. The illustrious Democratic party has decided that in order to win the mid-term elections this year, they need to improve their national security image. What better way to accomplish that than to claim that the Republican president has damaged it? They're saying that the War on Terror has fanned the flames of Islamic Fascism, making these turban-wearing camel jockeys more likely to strike. I ask, and what actions would make them less likely to strike? Appeasement didn't work. For eight years Bill Clinton did his damnedest to make the Arabs happy. Still there was the 1993 WTC bombing, the bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Perhaps appeasement isn't the answer, Mr. Chamberlain. It's an old issue, and it's been hashed and rehashed, but the only way to stop these people is to kill them.



But what do the Democrats do? They accuse the Republicans of using scare tactics to win elections.  "During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe," claims Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. He then goes on to say that Iraq is a disaster area, Osama bin Laden is on the loose and may attack again, and a whole host of other scary things. Who's using scare tactics?



Where were the Democrats when Sudan was offering bin Laden to the highest bidder? Where were they when the WTC was bombed the first time? Where were they when France and Germany were selling nuclear materials to Iran? Where were they when massive cuts in intelligence were made in the CIA, FBI and the military? Oh, that's right...they were in charge. I think it's time for the Democrats to re-evaluate their successes and failures, their overall position, and their platform--and once they've done that, they need to realize they've been wrong on just about every major issue for years, and collectively retire from politics, because the Republicans are in fact the only party that is interested in keeping America safe.