Don't worry, it's just a fear card

Hillary decided to join her friends in low places today by asserting that Rove and company are just "playing a fear card" to scare Americans into voting for republicans. Let me translate--the voters are dumb for caring about their security by believing all this WoT mumbo-jumbo:

Referring to fugitive al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

Maybe she should have asked Mr. Hillary, since he couldn't catch (or shall we say he refused to catch) that tall slippery dog for seven years. The casual observer could also say the co-presidents played a few fear cards of their own, if the casual observer was so-inclined.

Speaking of cards, was this a patriotism card?

"Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?"

Well, it's not, but who's trying to shut anyone up? The lefty jaws have been flappin nonstop since a week past 9/11.

This suggests Hillary has decided to take her campaign into Michael Moore-land by insinuating the WoT might be phoney, since all those years of tough war talk got her nowhere. When she starts appearing with Cindy Sheehan for photo ops, we'll know for sure.

2/9/06

Bush detailed the thwarted west coast attack today, presumably for two reasons. One was to counter Hillary's premise suggesting republicans are needlessly fearmongering. Another was to justify the NSA program.

By the way, I believe the democrats are using the word fear in conjunction with terrorism to embarrass Bush supporters for an unhealthy fixation on the issue. It's likely an attempt to drive the debate back to domestic issues, where the democrats feel more comfortable. If true it's no way to gain favor with voters.

Since I blog a lot about terrorism issues, let me explain my position. I don't fear a terrorist attack anymore than a carjack. Matter of fact, I don't think much about either in my daily course of events. However, I do want my government to think about these things, and I'm not convinced the dems have the needed vigilance nor required whoopass attitude to combat the problem. That's just my perception.

As to the NSA inference, you can read about it here.

One peculiar thing was the mention of using shoe bombs. Why use shoe bombers, when the concept seems better suited for a lone jihadist not requiring a hijacking? I can think of one plausible reason. Future hijacked airline passengers will never fail to storm their captors, regardless of the bomb claims. Carrying one or more shoe bombs would allow the terrorists a fall-back plan if they failed to gain control of the cockpit or the passengers started winning, providing some bang for the buck.