LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWas that Harry "We Killed the Patriot Act" Reid talking tough about national defense? Have they explained how SOF and spies will catch that rascally OBL in Pakistan?
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate"
Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from
Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.
"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security
George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate and as Democrats seek to cut into the public perception that the Republicans are stronger on national security.
Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10-point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress.
With the public skeptical of the Iraq war and Republicans and Democrats alike questioning Bush's war policies, Democrats aim to force Republicans to distance themselves from Bush on Iraq and national security or rubber-stamp what Democrats contend is a failed policy.
"The Democrats are going to take back the security issue," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Republicans have vowed not to let that happen. They characterized the Democrats' platform as tough election-year talk that isn't backed up by the party's record.
"This is more of the same from the party that opposes this president's effort to keep our country safe," said Tracey Schmitt, a
Republican National Committee spokeswoman. "The bottom line is while this president campaigns against the terrorists, Democrats remain focused on campaigning against this president."
Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."
It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.
The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
For months, House and Senate Democrats have tried to craft a comprehensive position on national security, but they have splintered, primarily over Iraq.
Republicans have sought to use that division to their own political advantage, claiming that Democrats simply attack the president and his fellow Republicans without presenting proposals of their own.
-----------------------
Was that Harry "We Killed the Patriot Act" Reid talking tough about national defense? Have they explained how SOF and spies will catch that rascally OBL in Pakistan?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
They will sow the countryside of Pakistan with Butter Cookie traps.
He'll turn up.
The Dems are smart.
Can the Predator fire Butter Cookie traps? Why not use Operation Dildo, instead?Originally Posted by M21Sniper
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Here's the document. Reminds me of taking my daughter to the circus and buying cotton candy - lots of fluff and no substance, in many cases looking like exactly what is happening.
http://democraticwhip.house.gov/docu...secdofinal.pdf
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
ODD is far too cruel a fate for anyone, espcially for the peace loving peoples of Pakistan.
But think of the sales of new comfy sleeping couches. The sales would go through the roof.
Chimo
Sleeper couches are Haram.
Hi Guys,
As near as I can tell Democrats would not have to do very much to look stronger than the Republicans on terrorism and so called "national security".
In my neck of the woods, the only time I see any evidence of the Republican's self proclaimed tough stand on security is at the airport and the football stadium.
Even then, the measures are so lackluster that a ten year old from one of the more radical madrassas could probably run rings around the T.S.A. guys I spent a goodly while watching (I was bored, had some time to kill and even tried to look suspicious but got no bites from a very unmotivated looking group of T.S.A. security people looking quite unprofessional in their ill fitting uniforms).
I live in a very target rich environment and the populous in general as well as emergency personnel that damn well ought to know better appear to spend most of the time in condition white.
Too, alot the money that the Bush Administration has been showering local and state officials with for counter terror drills and kit is not being particularly well spent.
For instance:
The City got itself a chunk of pork from the D.H.S. to build a Giuliani Bunker/Emergency Command Center and Make-The-Big-Wigs-Look-Good Honkytonk.
They chose a nice spot on a knoll overlooking the rail yard next to the interstate and they are working on it.
Three slight tactical errors are apparent even though the county Republicans and city officals hailed it as money well spent to enhnace the security of the populous:
1. With great fanfare, the powers that be announced the location of the facility and the street address in the newspaper;
2. The facility is located next to what is probably the juiciest, and still unsecured target in the United States;
3. The facility and juicy target are flanked by commanding heights and a host of easy infiltration/exfiltration routes;
If someone is in charge of advising and coordinating security efforts with the local governments that make up CONUS, they are incompetent, out to lunch or both.
In general, I do not have much faith in the Republican's big government, big spending approach to counter terrorism and security issues. It is counter intuitive at best.
The Bush Administration's lack of effort to secure the borders, establish more than window dressing counter terror, etc., etc. makes the Republicans vulnerable on said issues.
I am not saying the democrats can do any better neccessarily, just that they do not need to say or do much to get the better of the GOP on such issues.
The Republicans might say that they are waging a war on terror, but they appear to have some trouble getting the message out: five years later, it has yet to be heard in Southern Ohio.
Whichever party ends up in control of the government apparatus during the mid term and 2008 elections is going to have to match meaningful deeds to their tough talk on terror which is something neither party seems to have accomplished to date.
Regards,
William
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
No one even talks tough.
One use of the word "Crusade" in the days after 911 showed that Bush would back down RIGHT AWAY from pressure.
On many levels the WOT is a sick joke.
Last edited by Bill; 29 Mar 06, at 19:22.
Swift Sword,
I agree with you on the fact that the urgency at which the topic of border security and critical infrastructure has been lacking. I guess I would put the GOP as the lesser of two evils.
That's why I was so disappointed over the Dubai Ports Deal. The conversation centered around what I believe was a non-issue; however, the underlying conversation that was needed wasn't discussed - i.e. how well is DHS, USCG, CBP, etc. doing in securing our entry points. It was all a political smokescreen, with the Democrats seizing on an issue to poke Bush with while the GOP ran to prevent being outflank by the Democrats.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
The Dubai Ports deal was handled badly within the Executive Branch (period).
Had this issue been discussed with representatives of the States involved, it wouldn't have crash-landed like it did. I heard it said if Bush expected his party to be behind him at the landing, he should have included them in the take-off on the Ports deal as well. He did not. It was handled like a "Regime" Government, of which we are NOT.
I can truly say I have learned alot from the faults of this Republican Administration, and maybe Democrats have as well.
I wouldnt count on it.
You put the period in the wrong place. The Dubai Ports deal was handled badly within the Executive Branch AND the Legislative Branch. But it became a political football, and was demogogued to death.
I can see WHY it wasn't elevated to another level of the Executive bureacracy, although in retrospect, somebody should've seen how it would've provided an opportunity for the Democrats to play ploitics, and, dam' the best interests of the country, that's exactly what they did. So, some blame goes to the Administration for not anticipating how the Dems were going to screw up our foreign policy over this, in their usual self-serving attempts to get themselves back into power, no matter the wreckage they'll leave behind.
So, it's your position that the Dems (and a too-large number of Republicans, too...the cowards) were just having a tantrum over not being included in a ho-hum bureacratic decision that didn't REALLY affect national security in any meaningful way. Swell.
Tell me, what level of review do you expect for the every-day, ho-hum decisions in your government do you expect from your state executive? Do you think it right and proper for the governor to examine blueprints of every state facility projected to be built? Maybe he should go to traffic control meetings before the state's highway commission adds an exit sign to some backwater state road.
That's what this was: a decision for the managers of the SIX Federal agencies responsible for this subject. It was reviewed and passed UNANIMOUSLY by each of the 'buck slip' receipients, and at no time were any concerns expressed that were not fully addressed and approved.
But you're IN LOVE with your little fairy tale now, and there's no way anybody's going to talk you out of it.
We've all learned a lot from the faults of this Administration. I'd bet my paycheck you've learned the WRONG lessons, though.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
The Dubai Deal didn't originate with the President. Criticize his handling of it once he was made aware of it all you want, but don't act like he was leaning back in his chair rubbing his hands and cackling "Wait 'til they get a load of this one - Mu-ah hahahahahahahaha!"
-dale
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: