Prompted by my emails, I took a quick scan around the ‘net and noted that the rightwing blogs are doing double-time on the story while the leftwing blogs are either trying to downplay it or are outright ignoring the story.
I think the left has a very amusing take on all of this: There is no such thing as terrorist plots – they’re just Bush constructs meant to raise his poll numbers.
See, if a terror plot is thwarted, it’s because it wasn’t really a serious plot, it was just a haphazard idea that would have gone nowhere, and Bush is wrong to pimp it as news. In fact, the news broadcasts shouldn’t even be reporting on it, because it’s just Bushian propaganda.
But if a terror plot succeeds, it’s either because Bush wanted it to succeed – to acquire power and take over the country – or it’s because Bush wasn’t paying attention, because he’s an inept moron.
These people are so far gone that if a terrorist attack happens on a Democrat watch, it’s still – somehow – going to be Bush’s fault. He won’t have put enough safeguards in place, or something. If they can’t blame Bush, they might actually start blaming the terrorists. They’ll never blame the left for not taking things seriously enough, though.
And the right have sent me a few rather amusing emails, today, too, along these lines:
Well, Anchoress, what do you think NOW? See the lovely people that got in under Reagan’s amnesty? See Malkin? In 1988 this guy got citizenship under Reagan! Now he’s a terrorist! What do you think now, huh? Huh?
I think Reagan was a realist, but when he declared amnesty he should have done something about security and enforcement 20 years ago, which only highlights that the problem is of illegal immigration long standing and that no president knew how to tackle it.
I also think that people change. Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? I’m not. You can’t tell how anyone – or any immigrant – is going to turn out 20 years after you admit him to the country. So what, then? Should we just disallow all immigrants because someday, in 20 years, one of them might become a terrorist?
Someday, in 20 years one of them might become something great, too.
So, I think the “Reagan gave amnesty to a future terrorist” argument is an unconvincing one. But it is good to see a few Republicans remember that even the sainted Ronald Reagan did not always please them – as Reagan himself knew that some could never be pleased unless he went extreme. I also think those who are looking for Reagan’s re-incarnation in Fred Thompson might be disappointed. So far, all I see in Thompson is that he’s too slick by half, capable of playing with people’s heads, and that he’s fond of cigars…in all of that, he reminds me more of Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan.
Tomorrow my husband leaves for Japan out of JFK. I have beloved family in Queens, where these terrorists were hoping to kill a few hundred thousand or more. Despite the promptings of the left to “pay no attention to the man who has kept you safe for 6 years because there is no such thing as a war on terrorism, or jihad, and anyway, terrorists are mothers and fathers, just like us” I think I’ll err on the side of caution, here, and stick with the president who is doing what he can to keep us safe, and vote for the next guy who I believe can keep us safe, and I’ll shy away from both the slick packaging and the failed Clintonian method of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement problem…and I think I’ll continue to regard the war on terrorism as more than a simple “bumpersticker” phrase, thanks.