Comments

You have commented 340 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: WoT

Democrats say U.S. less safe since 9/11 (file under Defeatocrats)

2006-09-06

Democrats are going toe to toe with Republicans on national security in the final months before November's elections, calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and claiming that America is less safe today than before the September 11 terrorist attacks. "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said yesterday.

Republicans responded that Democrats simply want to "cut and run" from the war in Iraq and pointed out that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in nearly five years. "We are in a very serious war with an enemy who wants to end our way of life," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said yesterday. "The 'Defeatocrats' want to bring the troops home, want to put their tails between their legs. What message does that send to terrorists all over the world?"

Mr. Boehner and other Republicans accused Democrats of simply picking apart Republican strategies for fighting the war on terror without offering any of their own solutions.

But House and Senate Democrats yesterday endorsed a national security report penned by the Third Way National Security Project, a group founded by Democrats who support gun control. The report, which Mr. Reid called a "stunning indictment," concluded that the Bush administration's foreign policy has failed in Iraq, the war on terror, Afghanistan and other countries. The number of terrorist attacks and terrorist recruits is up worldwide, many enemy countries are now stronger and have better weapons, and America's influence with allies has weakened, according to the report.

While the report offered no specific suggestions for fighting the war on terror, the Democratic leader said it "makes a clear case for the new direction we need." At a press conference yesterday, Democrats said the administration should use more diplomacy and fully implement the recommendations by the September 11 commission.

Mr. Reid and Senate Democrats will introduce today a resolution voicing no confidence either in the administration's Iraq strategy or in Mr. Rumsfeld. "Time and time, he's been wrong about Iraq. And time and time again, he's responded to his own mistakes by playing politics," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said yesterday in a stinging floor speech on Iraq. "He needs to go."
Sure, Harry and Babs, I trust ya to death.

Posted by:Captain America

#12 What matters is to vote for the party that's doing something about it in a proactive, rather than reactive context, even if it's not perfect. Put another way, I'd rather have a bad pitcher who is at least trying to win the game, than a whiny baby who puts the ball in his pocket and goes home . . .

Thank you, ex-lib. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: eltoroverde 2006-09-06 17:18

#11 Of course the Dems are going for the votes, so they'll say anything. But it is some excellent political gaming: if the US is attacked, they'll say "SEE, we told you (vote for us)," and if we're not attacked they can go on bitching and accusing to their little black hearts' content (vote for us).

How stupid for people to believe that because there is an increase in aggressive acitivity on the part of the Islamic movement, that it's because of Bush-Hitler somehow "making it worse." Now, every time they perpetrate some violence, the Dems "credit" it to the Bush administration.

The point is, the ISLAMOFACIST underground war has been being constructed for more than forty years, and it's just now catching up with it's ambitions. It wouldn't matter who was in office, cuz' the Islam-icks would go on doing the same thing, and more so if the Dems were in power.

What matters is to vote for the party that's doing something about it in a proactive, rather than reactive context, even if it's not perfect. Put another way, I'd rather have a bad pitcher who is at least trying to win the game, than a whiny baby who puts the ball in his pocket and goes home . . .

Posted by: ex-lib 2006-09-06 12:46

#10 Simplistic? I think you've hit the nail on the head mcsegeek1.

If I were to add anything it would be this; the left hates "the idea" of America, that is the concept that people are free to do what they want unencumbered by those who believe they are their betters and should therefore be 'running' the show.

Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-09-06 11:04

#9 I don't want to sound oversimplistic, but here goes: The left hates America. The left wants it defeated, humiliated and crushed, so they can reform it into a leftist utopian socialist state that plays by their rules.They are, quite simply, the enemy. You can tell when they lie because their lips are moving.

Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-06 10:49

#8 ABC will air a documentary Sept 10 and 11 about what happened leading up to 9/11.
I think it's called 'While America Slept...Willy Got a Lewinski'.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-06 10:48

#7 a. Number of enemy killed during the Clinton Administration? [Aspirin factory night guard in Sudan does not count]

b. Number of Americans killed by the enemy as the result of Clinton policies of inaction?

Watch were they put 9/11. Heh. It's called legacy.

Im sure they dont want to reflect on the body count of the enemy produced during the Bush years in their estimate of how safe the world is becoming.

Posted by: Glomort Glons9693 2006-09-06 09:38

#6 Of course they feel less safe, now that they're forced to notice that the world is full of meanies. Truly amazing -- throughout the latter half of the 1990s the experts warned of a new and unexpected kind of terror attack by radical Arab Muslims. There was talk of smuggled nukes, deliberately infected carriers of smallpox or ebola riding international airplane flights or the New York City subway, suicide bombings at the Olympics, or a computer attack that would shut down the West. There was an entire sub-industry of successful films and television shows exploring the possibilites. The only surprises on 9/11 were the simplicity of the method used and that it had taken so long to actually happen.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-06 08:18

#5 I heard that one of their main gripes is that OIF was a wasted diversion away from the real war on terror.

For the 50th time, I would encourage the Republicans to pull out the most horrendous footage of Saddam's murders/tortures of his citizens and build a counterattack around it.

Something to the effect of a Dem leader saying: "Saddam was a tyrant but there are lots of tyrants in the world. We had no busiess removing him", then show footage. Show several stupid Dem quotes and several footage examples of truly barbaric acts of Saddam. Finish the Dems off by asking who really cares more about people in the international community-the Dems' self-assigned claim to fame.

I think the Republicans would do well by marrying this counterattack with one demonstrating how Dems always complain but don't offer substantial and practical solutions to real problems. There should be a lot of money quotes for that, too. You can find MANY pieces of media in which major Dem leaders are asked HOW they would solve the problems in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc., and to a man/woman, they all revert back to talking about the past-what was done wrong before, what conditions were-never about their plans of what to do now. Build this counterattack in a similar way-using their own footage against them. You know that they will be doing that to the Republicans in the next elections anyway, right? Beat them to the punch.

Whether the Pubs actually decide to do something like this or not, I hope that there are folks out there with access to these little gems of footage who are preparing them for re-airing. Americans-the whole world for that matter-need reminding.

Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands 2006-09-06 07:59

#4 And their master plan to be MORE safe is ....?

Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-06 07:35

#3 Blabbity blah blah blah. So eloquent and clueless are the comments I have seen. GW has probably forgotten more than these guys will ever know.

The MMs and Defeatocrats seem to long for power at any price. The MMs are cognizant of and Defeatocrats are unaware that someone else pays and all the chaos happens after they die. Deciet, ostracism, taking advantage of ignorance and instilling hatred seem to be both groups favorite tools to accomplish this. What they would do with power if they were to get it, maybe God knows. About the only reason I don't despise Defeatocrats is that the MMs do what they do to create an evil, inhuman system with them at the helm, and Defeatocrats do what they do out of what seems to be a combination of fear and the clueless but sincere belief that their policies will make the world such a happy place that nobody will ever desire to lift a gun again. With them at the helm.

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-06 03:49

#2 The Clinton-led DemoLeft is waiting for Amer Hiroshima(s) - "Less safe" > Dem-speak for "justified", PC Totalitarianism and Hyper-Govt everywhere against everyone, and ultimately OWG + anti-sovereign America.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-06 03:24

#1 Let's see. How many attacks against US soil and US interests around the world on Clinton's watch? The only attack in the last 5 3/4 years was 9/11...which the Clinton administration can be held, at a minimun, equally responsible with GW's.

Posted by: anymouse 2006-09-06 01:51

00:00