The heart of the matter

I'll try to be as concise as possible in responding to the recent Epistle of Saint Jeff the Verbose, since we're both getting a bit long-winded in our posts. As mentioned earlier, I'm a single issue voter when it comes to national elections (state and local elections are another matter; I have no problem voting for Democrats if I feel that person is the better candidate): that single issue being national security.

I am sorry that Jeff found "insulting" my contention that the left is unserious about national security. To clarify: I am not saying that Dems wish harm to come to our country, but that many liberals - especially the far left - simply do not (or will not) grasp the nature of the threat we face from the transnational Jihadist movement, and therefore cannot be trusted with the defense of the United States.

Jeff lists several issues in this regard, let's briefly consider each:

the Democratic strategy to dealing with terrorism is to strengthen port security and border security which the Bush administration has ignored;

I don't know how Jeff can say this with a straight face, when just a few weeks ago Senate Dems scuttled immigration reform legislation. I'm all for strengthening border and port security, and the Repubs have a poor record in this area. But I that doesn't mean I'd trust Dems with the job. For example, would a Dem Senate build a security wall at the southern border, as most Americans favor? Not a chance.

strengthen diplomatic ties with our allies and the U.N. in order to apply diplomatic pressure on terrorist groups and rogue states like Iran;

Such a statement typifies the naive outlook that much of the left has regarding the power of diplomacy to mollify those who wish to annihilate us. As the 9/11 Commission Report put it, "Bin Laden and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the 'head of the snake', and it must be converted or destroyed. It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground - not even respect for life - on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated." (emphasis mine)

And merely suggesting that we entrust even a modicum of our security interests to the debased United Nations - the same U.N. that just made Iran - Iran! - the Vice Chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission - is not merely naive, it is insane. Yep, that was great how the U.N. really put the "diplomatic pressure" on Iran by giving them the vice chairmanship of UNDC. The people of Srebrenica, Rwanda, and Darfur can tell you all you need to know about putting your safety in the hands of the United Nations.

find a suitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is extremely complicated and delicate;

Actually it's not that complicated at all. The Palestinian leadership's goal is to destroy Israel, and Israel would prefer not to be destroyed. Until the Palestinian leadership recognizes Israel's right to exist, no solution, "suitable" or otherwise, is possible. The U.S. has clearly stated its position on this fundamental issue again and again and again and again and again over the years.

end our dependence on foreign oil;

A laudable goal, but one that only indirectly affects our security. The Jihadists don't care how many hybrid cars we put on the road or how many wind turbines we build - they will still want to kill us regardless.

lower our trade deficit with troublesome nations like Saudi Arabia and China;

Again, a laudable goal, but again - the terrorists could give a damn about our bilateral import/export differentials.

continue to improve our intelligence gathering capabilities in order to avoid attacks (I actually would give Bush a pretty high grade on this, except for the domestic spying);

Jeff's caveat is another illustration of why Dems can't be trusted with national security - the ability to intercept real-time communications between persons in the U.S. and terror suspects abroad (without waiting hours or even days for a court authorization) is absolutely vital to thwart future attacks.

craft a strategy for troop withdrawal in Iraq within a year (our presence there is a catalyst for violence and terror recruitment);

There already is a withdrawal strategy, and U.S. troop presence is being drawn down even as we speak. But to put a hard date on final withdrawal helps nobody but the terrorists. In any case, the terrorists will pursue their agenda regardless of whether there are U.S. troops around. They needed no such "catalyst" for the bombings in Egypt yesterday, for example.

give proper benefits to veterans and active duty troops to help with recruitment drops (Bush gets an “F” on treatment of vets);

In what regard are veterans benefits not "proper", Jeff old chum? Why does Bush get an "F" on veterans affairs? And what "recruitment drops" is Jeff talking about? The Army and the ARNG have been meeting and exceeding recruitment and retention goals - perhaps Jeff has been misled by media spin on this subject.

and strengthen the middle class of our economy in order to foster less cynicism toward the government.

I cannot fathom why Jeff concludes his itemization of the "Democratic strategy to dealing with terrorism" with the above. The last time I checked, the U.S. middle class wasn't flying airplanes into buildings, strapping suicide vests to their children, burning embassies over silly cartoons, or threatening to nuke Israel. And I don't recall "cynicism toward the government" ever being a part of any Jihadist fatwa.

But at least it serves to illustrate my original contention: the left is either unable or unwilling to identify - let alone confront - the threat represented by radical Islam.