Jim Kouri
The Hillary plan to capture Osama revealed
By Jim Kouri
During the US Supreme Court session yesterday, the justices heard arguments regarding the due process rights of terrorists: are military tribunals constitutional or must these terrorists be given access to the civilian courts.
While the justices' questioned the arguing attorneys, Associate Justice Stephen Bryer, a staunch liberal-left legal scholar, responding to the Solicitor-General's statement about the war on terror blurted out, "This isn't really a war."
Now, I have respect for Justice Bryer, because without hesitating he admitted his true feelings about a war we've been fighting since September 11, 2001. Without fear of facing an election — since he's a justice for life — Bryer is able to articulate his positions. And as a liberal-left jurist he doesn't believe America is at war with terrorists. It's similar to when Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg — the ACLU's gift to America — said that she believed justices should apply foreign law to cases that come before the US Supreme Court. She could afford to be honest because she's set for life. They dare utter what's in the hearts of their fellow travelers without fear of retribution at the ballot box.
Associate Justice Stephen Bryer inadvertently let the Democrat cat out of the bag: they don't believe we're really at war.
But elected liberal-left politicians don't have the luxury Justice Bryer enjoys. They must push a left-wing — sometimes a far-left — agenda while trying to con Americans that they are the moderate ones.
It's the "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" strategy, that more often succeeds than it fails, depending on the cleverness of the politician. Senator John Kerry was awful using the "two-faced" strategy, while Senator Hillary Clinton is a bit better at it, especially with the help of the mainstream news media.
So today the news media are going all warm and fuzzy over the Democrat Party releasing today their National Security Policy or "Real Security" statement. How appropriate that it should be released on Wednesday which is known to America's workforce as "hump day."
"The highest responsibility of government is to protect the security of every American," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "After five years of Republican incompetence, Americans have had enough. They expect and demand policies that are tough and smart. They deserve Real Security."
"In these times of unprecedented challenge and change, real leadership demands tough and smart polices that recognize that a stronger America begins at home," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Democrats have set forth an agenda that offers a new direction, one that is strong and smart, one that understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
Does anyone believe these are tough warriors? When a cop on the streets finds himself in an intense combat situation, do you believe he'd want Harry Reid to take his back? Reid would hang back and leave the street cop to fend for himself, and later Reid would offer the excuse that he disengaged because he didn't agree with the cop's tactics.
At the top of this liberal-left strategy is the capture of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, they fail to articulate exactly how they would accomplish that feat. Does the Democrat Party have their own special forces soldiers who will replace our men and women now fighting in Afghanistan? I'd love to see a military that's exclusively a liberal-left construct. I suspect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be replaced by a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" policy.
Are we expected to believe that the currently deployed special forces — the best fighting men and women in the world — are inadequate when it comes to capturing the world's number one terrorist? Does anyone believe Senator Hillary Clinton would be able to capture bin Laden? Perhaps actress Sharon Stone believes it. Afterall, Hillary has such sexual power; she's a hot babe, according to the intellectual giant Dr. Sharon Stone. Perhaps Hillary can use her sexual prowess to lure Osama out of his cave. Who could resist Hillary's sexiness? Lookout, Scarlet Johansson, you've got some big competition. Not. Heck, we can't even get Hillary to wear a dress or skirt. How's she going to lure Osama out of hiding without showing some those shapely legs?
By all means read the strategy statement cooked up by the Democrat National Committee. Just remember that the real strategy contained therein has nothing to do with fighting terrorists. The strategy is how to please the far-left of their party — the MoveOn crowd, the Hollywood intellectuals like Streisand, Fonda, Baldwin and others, and the Code Pink Kool-Aid drinkers — while at the same time conning regular Americans into believing the Democrats are capable of winning the war on terrorism by sticking their heads in shipping containers. That's truly their strategy. The "Real Security" plan is really about job security to these hack politicians.
© Jim Kouri
During the US Supreme Court session yesterday, the justices heard arguments regarding the due process rights of terrorists: are military tribunals constitutional or must these terrorists be given access to the civilian courts.
While the justices' questioned the arguing attorneys, Associate Justice Stephen Bryer, a staunch liberal-left legal scholar, responding to the Solicitor-General's statement about the war on terror blurted out, "This isn't really a war."
Now, I have respect for Justice Bryer, because without hesitating he admitted his true feelings about a war we've been fighting since September 11, 2001. Without fear of facing an election — since he's a justice for life — Bryer is able to articulate his positions. And as a liberal-left jurist he doesn't believe America is at war with terrorists. It's similar to when Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg — the ACLU's gift to America — said that she believed justices should apply foreign law to cases that come before the US Supreme Court. She could afford to be honest because she's set for life. They dare utter what's in the hearts of their fellow travelers without fear of retribution at the ballot box.
Associate Justice Stephen Bryer inadvertently let the Democrat cat out of the bag: they don't believe we're really at war.
But elected liberal-left politicians don't have the luxury Justice Bryer enjoys. They must push a left-wing — sometimes a far-left — agenda while trying to con Americans that they are the moderate ones.
It's the "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" strategy, that more often succeeds than it fails, depending on the cleverness of the politician. Senator John Kerry was awful using the "two-faced" strategy, while Senator Hillary Clinton is a bit better at it, especially with the help of the mainstream news media.
So today the news media are going all warm and fuzzy over the Democrat Party releasing today their National Security Policy or "Real Security" statement. How appropriate that it should be released on Wednesday which is known to America's workforce as "hump day."
"The highest responsibility of government is to protect the security of every American," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "After five years of Republican incompetence, Americans have had enough. They expect and demand policies that are tough and smart. They deserve Real Security."
"In these times of unprecedented challenge and change, real leadership demands tough and smart polices that recognize that a stronger America begins at home," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Democrats have set forth an agenda that offers a new direction, one that is strong and smart, one that understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
Does anyone believe these are tough warriors? When a cop on the streets finds himself in an intense combat situation, do you believe he'd want Harry Reid to take his back? Reid would hang back and leave the street cop to fend for himself, and later Reid would offer the excuse that he disengaged because he didn't agree with the cop's tactics.
At the top of this liberal-left strategy is the capture of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, they fail to articulate exactly how they would accomplish that feat. Does the Democrat Party have their own special forces soldiers who will replace our men and women now fighting in Afghanistan? I'd love to see a military that's exclusively a liberal-left construct. I suspect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be replaced by a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" policy.
Are we expected to believe that the currently deployed special forces — the best fighting men and women in the world — are inadequate when it comes to capturing the world's number one terrorist? Does anyone believe Senator Hillary Clinton would be able to capture bin Laden? Perhaps actress Sharon Stone believes it. Afterall, Hillary has such sexual power; she's a hot babe, according to the intellectual giant Dr. Sharon Stone. Perhaps Hillary can use her sexual prowess to lure Osama out of his cave. Who could resist Hillary's sexiness? Lookout, Scarlet Johansson, you've got some big competition. Not. Heck, we can't even get Hillary to wear a dress or skirt. How's she going to lure Osama out of hiding without showing some those shapely legs?
By all means read the strategy statement cooked up by the Democrat National Committee. Just remember that the real strategy contained therein has nothing to do with fighting terrorists. The strategy is how to please the far-left of their party — the MoveOn crowd, the Hollywood intellectuals like Streisand, Fonda, Baldwin and others, and the Code Pink Kool-Aid drinkers — while at the same time conning regular Americans into believing the Democrats are capable of winning the war on terrorism by sticking their heads in shipping containers. That's truly their strategy. The "Real Security" plan is really about job security to these hack politicians.
© Jim Kouri
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
