Sloan should back up her statements

-A A +A
By Staff Brunswick Beacon

To the editor: Here we go again. After Carol Trapani retired, I thought I would not have to take pen to paper again, but the column by Renee Sloan in the March 6 edition of the Beacon cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Ms. Sloan’s column is devoid of anything even closely resembling factual data.

Where is her proof any American has had their rights violated by any eavesdropping? Like her predecessor, she fails to name anyone.

In fact, she makes the statement despite a recent appellate court ruling against an ACLU suit on exactly that topic. The reason the ACLU could not prevail was that after six years of allegations and complaints, they were unable to produce one person who had their rights violated.

“Bush and the Republican cronies?” That tells me all we need to know about where she is coming from. Why would they have to wiretap or eavesdrop to find out whom is criticizing the government? All they need to do is start an alpha listing of every liberal or Democrat or mass media outlet. They have been on his case since before his inauguration.

And why shouldn’t we be terrified of another terrorist attack? Isn’t losing 3,000 Americans in one attack enough to make us constantly vigilant?

Within days of 9/11, liberals and Democrats complained bitterly about the Bush administration’s failure to detect and prevent the attack.

Now Ms. Sloan doesn’t think we should try to find out. So, which is it? Do we have to wait for another attack before people like you get it?

Radical Islam has been at war with this country for more than 30 years. That is the reality we now face. It won’t be solved by some pie-in-the-sky group hug and a “let’s all get along.”

If you don’t know how they choose whom to eavesdrop on, I suggest you read the law. It is quite specific. But wait, you would feel better if we listened in on a conversation between a Swedish grandmother talking to her grandchildren, instead of possibly intercepting a terrorist plot.

Bush did not try to cut children’s healthcare benefits. Typical of liberal and Democrat thinking, the failure to go along with every large increase in spending on a program approved by the left, immediately translates into a cut in benefits.

Again, if Ms. Sloan would only give this a superficial look, she would find that Bush’s budget called for a substantial increase in these benefits. What he did veto was a Democrat plan that would have allowed families with children and a combined income of $80,000 to qualify for benefits.

And, as an aside, children would have been defined as being up to 25 years old. Old enough to vote, drink and defend this country, but not old enough to get their own coverage.

The statement that he planned on using the savings to buy more weapons and do more eavesdropping is beneath contempt.

The statement is foolish and merits no response because it is totally out of bounds and would appear more appropriate in the Huffington Post.

Sloan’s comments regarding why we are still in Iraq has some validity, but only as a partial thought process in thinking through the entire situation. The fact is, we are there, and to leave even one day prematurely would invite a disastrous result for us, our allies and especially the region.

“How come we can’t find Bin Laden?” Bill Clinton had him on a silver platter and didn’t get him.

But if I remember correctly, didn’t we have a very difficult time finding an American, in this country, who had bombed a number of buildings and was able to hide for many years until a relative recognized him and turned him in?

Bin Laden is hiding in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan where there is no law and our presence is minimal. But does it matter? For all intents and purposes, he is on the run, marginalized and unable to function.

Sloan returns to what she calls the real reason for the Patriot Act. The real motive is to find the harshest critics. Here again there is no proof. What we may have though is projection, which is typical of liberals and Democrats.

They have the ability to charge others with the exact things they themselves are guilty of doing. The Clintons used numerous government agencies to investigate and go after political enemies. Republicans are not deluded in their support of the Patriot Act.

We see the danger in not trying to ferret out everything we can about attempts to attack us, and the people who are plotting to do so.

And it is not just Republicans who voted for it. The latest bill for the extension of the act had bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi knows if she allowed the measure to come up for a vote in the House, it would pass by an equally large margin. But she would rather play politics with our safety.

In closing, Ms. Sloan states in her next to last paragraph that we should be smart enough to think for ourselves. She should heed her own advice.

She has a duty to present facts to support her positions so that people can make responsible decisions based on factual information.