- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, BEFORE they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. The policies espoused by both Clinton and Obama would grievously damage our Nation's National Security Interests; and, intensify America's vulnerabilities to terrorist activities. As history has repeatedly taught with grim consequences, PEACE is won only THRU STRENGTH; and, NOT THRU the nebulous psychosis of HOPE. Greg Neubeck
