Reagan Vs. Bush on Terrorism

It has been pointed out by many that terrorism today is not unlike terrorism in prior generations, the faces and names have changed (except for many repeat Muslim names such as Muhammad perhaps) however the goals remain the same. Terrorism in the 1970's and 1980's waved over Europe from Yassir Arafat’s organization and other Middle Eastern groups with restaurant and aircraft bombings, machine gunning’s in airports and assassination attempts and successes be not uncommon. The primary difference for American's today is that due to a lapse in the Bush administration's defense preparedness they allowed Al Qaeda to destroy and objective and a half in the United States.

President Bush spoke on Labor Day about how the holiday is for people that work, yet he and right wing radio have in a sense redefined the day to a lecture on how to annihilate liberalism and labor unions. It is a day for management and ownership to berate the lower class all for the good of globalism. The President however doesn't neglect to mention that American security is in jeopardy still-and he isn't referring to outsourcing of jobs to China or to the flood of illegal migrant works from Mexico.

Anarchists have been credited with starting the first world war with the assassination in Sarajevo of a Hapsburg archduke and producing casualties far in proportion to their actual successful assassinations in Europe (2000 with millions killed in the war). The writer of a current Atlantic article on American response to terrorism felt that political reaction to terrorism can be worse to the reactionary than to the perpetrator economically. President Bush's response has jeopardized the financial security of the nation is has been argued.

Ronald Reagan perhaps created more confidence in the nation's population as he adroitly reacted to terrorist acts abroad, and of course he had a good Defense Sect. able to adapt with intelligence to change's and opfor capabilities as they developed. The administration’s present pr and implementation activities promote the nation building in Iraq to perennial war, and seems to rely on a goal of forever stopping terrorist attacks upon an indebted yet militarily powerful nation before he leaves office, which is preposterous as most right-thinking people are aware. Terrorism can be contained, defended against and perhaps reduced to a minimal level yet never entirely stopped without putting everyone, everywhere in chains. The administration is evidently on the road to retirement leaving Os Bin Ladin free to plan and dream of further destruction in the United States.

I haven't confidence in either party's ability to rescue America from the slide in globalist takeover, nor reliance on oil for automobile power thought stop short of thinking of them as Death-o-crats and Doomicans much. I believe however that the Democrats did rather well in prior American wars they administrated, and can do well with security too if not much subverted by globalist sympathies. What is lost during the Bush administration's nearly paranoid dependence on terror to rescue it from a requirement of political competence in other areas such as economics and environment is the need the nation has to go to home-powered electric cars, create a total immigration number of no more than 400,000 a year from all sources legal and illegal (immigrant labor has corrupted the rationale for NAFTA by exporting jobs and importing cheap labor simultaneously gutting wage and standard of living prospects for many Americans).

The administration should declare victory in the war on terrorism and move on to its shoddy record on the environment, real wage decrease, total two-term job performance, record on education, increasing federal debt and so forth. President Reagan could handle terrorism and economics at the same time and even have some luck with international diplomacy.

Some Democrats are awaiting Bill Sherpa to accompany Hillary to the Summit of the Oval Office to win one for the zipper. I am not certain that even Hillary could not do a lamer job as President than President Bush has. There are those however that feel that the nation has experienced 18 years in a row of globalism in the White House without leadership in transport and energy independence not only from the world but from corporations as well. That could have been done with federal stress on wind, solar and fuel cell power for electric cars, and power lines for direct energy tapping in selected roadways. I hadn't intended to overly criticize the administration's record, yet can see I barely skimmed the surface, and hope to get on to writing philosophical topics anyway soon.