Posted by
philosophocon on Friday, June 20, 2008 11:26:21 PM
I was reading the replies to the Wirs' column yesterday, but couldn't post due to technical glitches, so I'll pose my questions here.
As usual, many folks came down on the vote for the lesser of both evil sides, because of the one core conservative issue that McCain is generally viewed as having going for him: national defence. Although quite frankly I find some of the doomsday scenarios with respect to Obama a bit far-fetched. Would it be a good thing? No, it would be a very bad thing. But to read some posts, you'd think that after four years of Obama Arabic would become the new official language of the U.S., which is getting pretty far out there. I mean honestly, the world won't come to an end, it just won't be as nice a place as it otherwise would.
Nevertheless, I personally like the idea of doing the fighting in their back yard,
not your own.
So staying active in the
Middle East is not the worst idea I've heard and taken in context McCain's comment about staying there for 100 years is of no consequence. So McCain's willingness to continue to bring the fight to them is a good thing.
However, the direct threat posed by Muslim terrorists
to most Americans, and where Americans are most vulnerable, is not over there, but here.
Isn't preventing them from arriving here an important part of national security in the war on terror? Now if you think about how they can get here, what comes to mind?
The
exceedingly porous Southern border that McCain has absolutely no desire to control.
Wasn't it the Fort Dix Six that were muslim terrorists who mostly entered the US from Mexico?
A dirty bomb or nuclear device smuglled across the border and detonated in the U.S. is a lot closer to being the end of the world type stuff, and can anyone honestly claim with a straight face that there is any kind of significant difference between McCain and Obama that would affect this?
Also, how many of the September 11th hijackers were
here on fraudulant or expired visas? How many would not have been around with a half-decent immigration control and enforcemnt system?
Another question: if you legalize millions of people through amnesty, or any other name that stinks the same, can you look the American people in the eye and swear that no terrorist in the U.S. illegally will be able to benefit from that? McCain has demonstrated through proposed legislation, legislation bearing his name for crying out loud,
that he has no intention of going there, either. Another draw, as far as I'm concerned.
Or, in the end, do we have to pretend that a secure border and immigration control are issues completely unrelated
to national security in order to give McCain his one core conservative issue?