April 2014
« Jan    

Problem A Voting

Firearms guru and author of the book The Art of the Rifle (among others) Jeff Cooper said (and I’m paraphrasing), “In a gunfight, there are only two problems: Problem A and Problem B. Problem A is saving your life: that’s what you deal with first. Problem B is everything else.” “Everything else” includes legal ramifications, cleaning up afterwards, feeling bad, etc. Don’t sweat Problem B until you’ve taken care of Problem A. Makes sense.

I’ve written before about the nature of effective self-defense, but in a word, it can be described as preemption. Crucible Security Specialist CEO Kelly McCann says, “Final confirmation of an attack almost always comes in the form of injury to you.” Hence, you have to hit first, and you have to hit so hard that your opponent cannot counterattack. That’s why I support the way that the War on Terror is being prosecuted, because it takes the notion of preemption as a guiding strategy.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, there are many “authorities” out there who don’t take the threat of Islamic terrorism very seriously. Filmmaker Michael Moore said in October of 2003: “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.” To Moore, 9/11 simply did not happen, and our military response to this non-event was simply an effort to build an oil pipeline (a conceit echoed by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry Mcauliffe). Senator Ted Kennedy told us very recently that “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush!” Presidential hopeful John Kerry has said in recent campaign commercials that he feels the way to make the U.S. safe is to “rebuild alliances.” I’m not sure which alliances he’s talking about, but I suspect he mans France and Germany, who not only refused to help us fight the War on Terror but actively tried to hinder it. Former President Jimmy Carter said just a few days ago that “…now we have just a handful of little tiny countries supposedly helping us in Iraq…” which doesn’t sound very much to me as if he’s very serious about this war, either (not to mention the slap in the face he gave to countries like Australia, the U.K., and Romania, among many others). Well, foreign policy was never Carter’s strong suit, his Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. The point is that influential people like Moore, Kennedy, Carter, and Kerry are playing games with my family’s personal safety in order to score political points. It’s an old saw by now that “reasonable men can differ on how to fight the War on Terror,” but show me a reasonable man in this bunch. I don’t hate them, but I am worried at the prospect of their regaining power in this time of trouble.

We can no longer hide behind the fig leaf of ignorance when it comes to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-civilization is open and unconcealed among them. Their stated purpose is to destroy us all. We know that they don’t fear death or injury, and that they contemn us for the very laws that make us civilized and moral. All they fear is failure. With that in mind, how can we ignore that we’re still laboring under a Problem A situation? How can the biggest fear be four more years of President Bush?

I don’t like Bush’s stance on immigration or health care. I don’t agree with many other domestic policies he’s in favor of. But those issues are Problem B issues, and while they can’t be ignored, they occupy a lesser area of concern in my mind. Call me simplistic, but I’m a Problem A voter, and because President Bush takes Problem A as seriously as I do, he’s getting my vote this November.

6 comments to Problem A Voting

  • Joshua

    I’m sure you echo the sentiments of many, many voters in this country.

    One thing you said I take issue with; “The point is that influential people like Moore, Kennedy, Carter, and Kerry are playing games with my family’s personal safety in order to score political points.”

    Bush and Cheyney have done much the same. They, too, have gratiuitously used 9/11 as a rallying point for political gain. If terrorism is tanatamount to fear of the unknown, in that we don’t know when or where they will strike, the Bush administration tries two things: 1. to convince America that the Democrats are weak on terrorism. Nothing is farther from the truth. There is nothing out there that realistically suggests that the Democrats will do anything different other than try to court other resource rich countries into sharing the War on Terrorism burden. 2. to convince us that the Hussein led Iraq had something tangible to do with terrorism in America, when two commissions (the senate and the 9/11 commission) provides strong evidence of that being false. After 9/11, it is understantable that the government wishes to keep us informed of any and all terrorist alerts. I’m not convinced that the constant terror alerts (many of which does not raise the terror alert level from Yellow to any other color) is a “plot” by the administration to keep us in fear, as Moore and Frank Rich and others argue. However, the Bush administration’s use of the above two points shows to me, at least, a mishandling of Problem A and using the War on Terrorism for scoring political points.

  • If the Bush administration hadn’t mentioned 9/11, they’d have been guilty of ignoring it or putting less weight to it as an issue. I’ve heard it said many, many times that use of 9/11 imagery is exploitation of the dead for political gain, which is a specious claim because it doesn’t require anything other than an emotional reaction to validate it. “They’re politicizing it!” Say that about anything.

    As for the Democrats being weak on terrorism, I’ve already stated why BY USING THE DEMOCRATS’ OWN WORDS I feel that way. Teddy Kennedy doesn’t think we’re in danger except for what Bush would do to us. That’s what he said. The Democrats have a proven track record of weak responses to Islamic terrorism dating back to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. I don’t want them watching my back.

    As for the Hussein-9/11 connection, I understand that you may feel that Iraq had little to do with terrorism in the U.S. or anywhere else, which is fine. I defy you to show me where the Bush administration said to the people of the U.S.: “Saddam did 9/11.”

  • jmaster


    You have the right to interpret the 9-11 commissions report as you see fit, but I suggest you check this post from another blog a week or so ago. There are at least 15-20 occurances of evidance relating Iraq with Al Queda in the report.


    I haven’t had the time yet to read all of those sections of the report myself, but after a few, I would strongly disagree with your interpretation of the report’s findings.

  • Joshua

    Thank you for creating a summary. I just got the 9/11 book I ordered from Amazon.com, and I’m looking forward to reading it. My knowledge of the report’s findings have been through the news. As such, I’ve read things such as this:


    “The panel’s staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.”

    In challenging the commission’s finding, Bush and his aides argued that their previous assertions about the ties between Iraq and the terrorist organization were justified by the contacts that occurred.

    “This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda,” Bush said. “We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”

    Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff’s finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. “Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes,” Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel’s chairman, said at a news conference. “What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States.”

    And that’s what I based my assertions on. I’ll read the book and see if the news reporting accurately reflects the contents of the book.

  • Joshua

    Another thing: to address the issue of whether I asserted that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, I certainly never made any such assertion. I believe the misunderstanding comes from the following (excuse my bad taste in quoting myself):

    “…to convince us that the Hussein led Iraq had something tangible to do with terrorism in America, when two commissions (the senate and the 9/11 commission) provides strong evidence of that being false.”

    Perhaps I should have made it clearer. My prose has flaws. I should have written; “…to convince us that the Hussein led Iraq had something tangible to do with potential terrorist attacks in the United States, when evidence does not support such an assertion.” There, that should clear things up.

  • Fair enough. He was only dangerous to his own people, after all. Oh, and to the Israelis.