The US Administration today held a news conference revealing more detailed information regarding the analysis that al Qaeda is planning a major strike this summer.
The U.S. has ``credible intelligence from multiple sources'' that al-Qaeda plans to attack the U.S. in the next few months, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, as he alerted the nation to be on the lookout for seven members of the terrorist group.
Yet, it seems, operatives for the presumptive Democratic candidate are seeking to undermine the warning by attempting to spin this as a political move:
In a conference call with reporters arranged by the presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry, who is challenging U.S. President George W. Bush, leaders of two police and firefighter unions said they suspect the timing of the warning had more to do with Bush's political standing than with any recent revelation by U.S. intelligence.
The danger here is that if these people succeed in convincing people that all such announcements by the FBI, CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security are simply political in nature, will they not also endanger the lives of Americans?
The extremely partisan spectacle that is the 9-11 Commission is, at the same time, attempting to sully the current administration for not doing enough; not giving enough warning; covering up something they knew.
How does all of this play together?
Given the contradictory nature of the accusations, one might conclude that "the loyal opposition" is more interested in winning power than saving people's lives.
This seems consistent with observations regarding the Iraq war as well where if the current undermining of US operations there are successful, whoever is sitting in the Whitehouse in January will have an even more difficult, if not impossible task of stabalizing the region.
And a Middle East that is more destablized than it was prior to the Iraq war endangers US citizens.
One could argue that it was the strategy itself that would have caused this. However, with the constant undermining of that strategy by some Democrats and media outlets, if failure does occur, historians will have a difficult time deciding if it was the stragtegy or the political opponents that was to blame. And history may even decide that it was not the strategy that was flawed.
Can the Democratic Party risk that?
It seems so.
To me, it appears that what passes for the Democratic Party (and "liberalism" in general) today, is more short sighted than visionary. This didn't used to be the case, but it seems it is now.
Can we trust a party that is so myopic that it will trade American lives for political power?
I don't think so.
