"They think that they can 'take back the security issue'"

From a Presidential press briefing on March 13, 2002:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." Pres. Bush (In response to a question on the hunt for Osama bin Laden).

It is this attitude that has failed to properly address the "war" on terror. This is the attitude that has not made any real progress. It is the attitude that made him concede he does't know how to win and/or end this war, so it will be up to the next (more competent implied) administration to dig us out of this hole.

I guess in Bush's eyes, Bin Laden is of little interest. I wonder why.

I will take my chances with the GOP to protect us from those that want to kill us all, over the Democrats, who have said in the past that it is a "police action". Otherwords, take them to court and sue them ( typical Democrat response )

Hell no - It is a kill them all action.

mike al-moore would observe that bin Laden is of more use to Bush alive than dead.

fear sells.

indeed it does...avian flu anyone?

Hmmm, let's see somehow the Patriot Act is going to make us safer. Yeah right.
Why the rhetoric about people against "Pat Act"? Constitutionalist having concerns about somethings in the Act, and there in the way of progress holding up security? OK.

Did not 9/11 tell the people anything?
Government will never be able to protect you fully. I don't care if you spend 250 trillion.
Why do you think individuals have the right to bear arms?
I'm dissapointed in Conservatives who stand behind a talking head rather than party philosophies and ideas.

Did anyone actually READ the article mentioned by Matt about Democrats wanting to cut Military spending? Instead of just mentioning that Dems want to cut Military spending, how about mentioning where and why?
-----
“I think it’s time for Congress and the House to talk about the huge amount of tax dollars going for weapons systems designed to fight a Cold War that doesn’t exist,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
-----
The savings in defense spending in the progressives’ plan would come from cutting programs dealing with the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, the Virginia Class attack submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, the V-22 Osprey aircraft, the C-130 J transport aircraft and all offensive space-based weapon systems. It would trim programs such as the tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat System.
-----
The article also mentions a lot of this was proposed by Larry Korb who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.
So instead of spending the billions on these things that are relics of the Cold War, why not invest this money in American infrastructure? Invest in the kids that will be the future leaders of this country. Invest in HOMELAND security!

Matt, just keep throwing out these phrases like "Dems want to cut military". NO.... Dems want to better spend money and not waste it.

Also no..... Dems don't oppose the Patriot Act in and of itself. They oppose how it is worded and how it is run.

No... Dems don't oppose spying on terrorists using wiretaps. They oppose the President doing it with no oversight.

No... Dems do not oppose the war. They oppose having no parameters for victory and no plans to exit any time in the near future.

No... Dems do not want to lose the war. Dems want very much to win the war, just define what the mission is and how it can be deemed complete.

Vero, what has the GOP done to better protect you? AlQueda attacked us on 9/11. Iraq didn't. Bush himself said he is not worried about Bin Laden and doesn't care about him. What have they done that convinces you they are better suited at winning this "war" on terror?

I'm Sick of your Lies,

So lets cut the military spending on weapons systems to replace ships and aircraft that were developed and built over 40 years ago? Do you know that we are flying some aircraft that are over 50 years old? Fortunately, because of the professionalism of our military, they have been kept in fighting shape, but they have a reasonable life-span and they are reaching the end of it.

So lets spend more money education, where we are spending 100's of billions each year, only to get poorer results. Or maybe more trillions on the "War on Poverty" that we have been waging for 40 years and still haven't won.

Yes...Dems did oppose the Patriot Act. Your Senate Minority Leader boasted how the Dems "Killed the Patriot Act". Is that support. Show me one instance where rights have been denied or violated because of the Patriot Act, that haven't been denied or violated because of laws available to fight organized crime.

Yes...Dems do oppose the war. They have called the President a liar on the Senate floor. They voted for it, before they voted against it. Try reading the National Security Strategy. It outlines the war on terror and defines the parameters for victory and plans to reduce our military in the Middle East.

The mission is to defeat terrorist and create a world where freedom and liberty can flourish. You got a problem with that?

As for what the GOP has done to better protect us, I don't remember any terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11, so they must be doing something right. Although al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, they are just part of an overall war on terror, just as Iraq is just part of the overall war.

I have asked repeatedly, what is the liberal plan for winning the war on terror, but you refuse to give a rational answer. What have the Dems done that convinces you that they are better suited at winning this WAR on terror (I deduce from your scare quotes that you don't think it is a war. Perhaps you need to talk to a WTC or Pentagon survivor, a wounded service member who willingly risked his or her life to battle terrorism where the terrorists originate, or someone familiar with our efforts, then decide if it is a war).

"Also no..... Dems don't oppose the Patriot Act in and of itself. They oppose how it is worded and how it is run." In otherwords, they oppose the Patriot Act. Though they voted for it. Again. Hypocrites.

"No... Dems don't oppose spying on terrorists using wiretaps. They oppose the President doing it with no oversight." In other words, we think foreigners hell bent on destroying America and its People should be given Constitutional Rights. Laughable.

"No... Dems do not oppose the war. They oppose having no parameters for victory and no plans to exit any time in the near future." In other words, we want to know the plan, so we can give the information to the enemy. Again.

"No... Dems do not want to lose the war. Dems want very much to win the war, just define what the mission is and how it can be deemed complete." Yet every Defeatocrat NEVER, EVER, says that. They all talk about leaving Iraq before the mission is done. Or, as they are now saying, "strategic redeployment." Cut and run.

The Dems have a history of being weak kneed since the late 60's. A cute plan will not change the reality.

Perhaps you need to talk ... a wounded service member who willingly risked his or her life to battle terrorism where the terrorists originate.....

To warthog (A-10)

willingly?...yes I suppose you're right, current service personnal are volunteers...but if they don't go they get court marshalled. We hire mercenaries paid to carry out the illegal policies of this government. This is not heroic, they're not evil either but what a shameful waste of idealistic, put it on the line young people.

As far as a so called liberal plan -- if we had any backbone we would have voted this crap down when we had a chance. Now we broke it we bought it. So what is plan well for one thing it is beginning to tell the truth. Up is not down, losing is not winning, the invasion of another country is just that an invasion...not something you can rationalize or lie about despite the best efforts of the current propaganda machine and those of you willing to accept it.

I'm sure an on going arguement in the cafes of Bagdad is... was it really worse before the americans showed up.

To say that no attacks have occured on US soil since 9/11 first of all ignores that the GOP was in control on 9/11 and more and more examples of how the new GOP ruling party ignored intelligence and signs comes out every day.

Second, terrorist attacks on US soil are very rare. The two biggest examples recently were Oklahoma City, and one can hardly make the argument that the Bush doctrine in Iraq will prevent other such attacks, and the first WTC bombing in 1993 that occurred just one month after GHWB left office.

Third, terrorist acts are up worldwide. Both the British and the Spanish were severely attacked. We also had the anthrax scares...did we ever solve that one?

Not to mention that the Taliban is reaching power levels not seen since 2001, Hamas now officially runs Palestine, and Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's heroin thanks to the way the US operates there. (basically, they allow heroin to be produce and sold in order to fund the militias that act as our allies.)

Not to reiterate the points made in an earlier comment, but the dems want to cut funding for space-based defense and things like the missile defense system which is ludicrously expensive and has failed test after test. That money would be better spent securing ports, adding radiation scanners, securing nuclear sites, etc. etc. They have proposed such things time and again (I think there were 6 attempts to amend the latest budget alone). All were shot down even though all ammendments were to be funded by closing loopholes in corporate tax laws, but the GOP put the donations of the corporations who profit from those loopholes ahead of the safety of Americans.

First Bush stonewalled the 9/11 commision, and then after they were finally able to issue a report and gave the gov't failing grades on numerous levels of security, the GOP did nothing to fix those problems.

The GOP has steadfastly refused to create standards for first responder communication systems, a major source of the confusion and deaths from both 9/11 and Katrina.

If the GOP was doing such a great job, why are people still afraid of attacks? Why has our security level never been at blue or green? Why is Osama Bin Laden and his number two man still at large? Why aren't there endless trials going on for all those that we have caught?

To state that the GOP does a better job because they want to spend a billion dollars to protect us from missiles from Russia rather than spending money on our ports is preposterous. To say that the party that has done NOTHING to correct the failings found by the 9/11 commission is serious about security is absurd. To say that the leaders that have yet to capture the number one and two terrorists in the world are doing a good job is just plain laughable. To say that the government is succeeding when attacks worldwide are going up and major cities around the world are still being bombed is just an outright fabrication.

if you honestly think the next attack will be launched by an ICBM and that all of the numerous and failed tests of the missile defense system were flukes, then continue to vote GOP.

If you want all our ports installed with radiation detectors to prevent a dirty bomb from entering through our weakest security point, then vote Democratic.

If you want rescue workers like those who dealt with 9/11 and Katrina to actually be able to talk to each other, vote Dem. But if you want more Katrina relief money earmarked for Pres. Bush's brother's software company, vote GOP.

So, Nyles, just another left wing screed against the GOP, with no actual ideas or concrete plans to support what the Dems would supposedly do. Just more meaningless, empty rhetoric.

Teach,
Nyles just went thru all these arguments and all you have is that the Dems have no plans?
What are the GOP plans other than status quo on occupying Iraq, not hunting down OBL and leaving our ports unsecure?
What are their plans and what have they done?
Oh yes... they held special sessions to try and keep a Terry Shiavo alive and they held hearings on steroids in baseball.

We are discussing the Democrats and their supposed plans. I know it is difficult to respond on subject, since Dems do not want to reveal their real plans, ie, abortion on demand, high taxes, immense socialist programs, weakening our national security, etc, but give it a shot. WHat will Dems do for us?

Btw... the latest blame game. If it isn't the people against the war that are aiding the insurgents, it is the damn Media. If it isn't the Media, it obviously must be Saddam......right?

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/14215114.htm

I get it now. The GOP doesn't have to come up with a plan. Everything is perfect right now as is.
Don't worry about what they are doing. It is the Dems that have to come up with the plans. Well, they laid out their plans, I would like to see more details, but you know what? They aren't the party in charge here. Dems plans mean nothing right now because the GOP-controlled Congress would never vote for them. So I ask... what is the GOP plan? Theoretically, it would surely get passed whatever that plan is. It is obviously just status quo.

And Teach, you are so right... all we want are more abortions and more taxes. Don't forget we also want it to be a law to kick every puppy in America and to knock down every old person using a walker that we pass. We are mean people except when it comes to terrorists, then we want to hug them.

GOP plan - status quo. Everything is peachy as long as the media just reports the good stuff. We will just keep saying we are all safer and the Dems have no plan.
Dems plan - do something to end this war and keep America safe. Something is better than nothing.

Still deflecting, sick.

I see you are too.

Teach: This sounds like a plan. And a good one:

"If you want all our ports installed with radiation detectors to prevent a dirty bomb from entering through our weakest security point, then vote Democratic." Sick ' lies

Teach, RE-read Nyle's post again. Tell me where is the GOP plan making any of us safer?

so sick says. However, what is in the Democratic plan that is concrete, and that would change their image of being weak on Defense? Still waiting.

Yo teach. Read my post. Sick of lies does make a concrete point.

Your wait is over, my friend.

Already have read your, and sick's, posts. Empty promises and patronizing rhetoric do not overshadow 40 years of being weak on national security by the Dems

Teach,

If you haven't noticed by now, "Ash", "Sicko", and the others have terminal BDS. I have linked to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq , but they act as if it doesn't exist.

Here's also the link to the National Strategy For Homeland Security, but they will probably ignore it as well.

It seems that the Bush Administration has developed plans to address the war on terror, winning in Iraq, and protecting our homeland, but the looney leftist pretend that those plans don't exist. Maybe if they took a minute and stopped ranting about the President trampling on our rights and read what the plans are, they might learn something. But that's asking for a miracle.

Of course, if you ask them for their plan, they'll respond that since the Dims are in control of Congress, it won't do any good to propose a plan, because the evil Republicans will just vote it down. So, in other words, they don't have a plan. They just say that "We'll do better because we're not President Bush". Mighty convincing. I'm ready to bet my security on them. NOT.

That was supposed to say: "Dims aren't in control of Congress".

You are very right, A-10. I see it constantly on a forum. We ask them for their ideas and plans, they say "dems aren't in charge." If dems are so bad that they cannot even put an idea or plan out there, why vote for them?

Bush and company do have plans, but, like you said, the Defeatocrats ignore them. Anything more then a quick soundbite or one liner is too much for them to understand.

Teach,

And they say we're thick-headed.

ports installed with radiation detectors to prevent a dirty bomb from entering through our weakest security point

A-10, Teach

The only thing more concrete than this boys, is the substance your heads are made of.

The repuglicans have needed "enemies" since Joe McCarthy. Communist and terrorists, oh my.

The basic difference between us is that I don't need a boogey man in my world. Sorry you boys do.

Ash,

I wish there weren't "boogey-men" out there that we need to defend against. I spent 27 years in the military. I was on the frontline of defense against the "boogey-men". I would be happy if we could reduce our defense spending because there were no threats to our way of life.

Unfortunately, there are "boogey-men" out there that wish us harm. They want to fly more airplanes into skyscrapers, detonate dirty bombs, and poison our water supplies. They hate us for who we are and our way of life. If I could snap my fingers and make them disappear, I would. But I can't. I wish that maintaining a strong military was unecessary.

However, I know that that will never happen. There will always be a Hitler, bent on killing off entire cultures and desiring world domination. There will be a Stalin, also bent on world domination. And there will be Saddam's and Osama Bin Laden's who wish to kill us.

You cannot appease terrorists. It is their mindset that appeasement equals weakness. They attack the weak, because they can and they know the weakness will prevent retalliation.

Rather than try to appease them, we need to fight them militarily, culturally, and economically. We need to change the environment in the Middle East so young people don't turn to terrorism as a way of life.

But until that change occurs, we need to take the fight to them. For too many years (all while I was serving in the military), we ignored the growing threat of global terrorism. I am thankful that we now have a President that will not try to appease the terrorists, for they thrive on weakness. I firmly believe that if the Clinton response would have been more forceful after the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks, and the bombing of the USS Cole, the Islamo-facsists would not have grown in strength and would not have attacked us. They perceived us as being weak because we did basically nothing after being attacked.

So they stepped up their level of attack and 9/11 occurred. For the sake of Western Civilization, we must defeat them. Do not think for a minute that if we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq that the terrorists would stop their terrorist attacks. They have plainly stated that it is their plan for spreading Islam throughout the world. You either convert to Islam, are subjugated, or are killed. So unless you are willing to convert (assuming you aren't already a Muslim) or be subjugated, you need to be prepared to fight for our way of life, or at least be supportive of the rest of us as we fight for your right to live free. Its your choice. I've made mine.

The Dem platforms remind me of the typical Beauty Pagent repsone:

"And Miss (insert state) what would you do if Crowned Miss America?"

"...well...I would use my crown to work for children's rights, universal healthcare, saving the environment, and...world peace."

What horse sh*t.

A-10,
I HAVE read the National Strategy for Victory. Looks like "Empty promises and patronizing rhetoric" to shadow the fact that nothing went as they expected since they had no planning what-so-ever.

"Do not think for a minute that if we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq that the terrorists would stop their terrorist attacks."
Well A-10, do not think us STAYING in Iraq will sop their terrorist attacks either! It just will not happen. It is not a country that you can take over and stop it.

Like the reasons for war or not, we are in a war, we need to deal with it. Where some of the outrage should be from ALL Americans is the lack of preparedness of those planning the invasion. More outrage should be from being unable to get any stability in Iraq after toppling Saddam. It was like they said "OK.. Saddam is gone, now what should we do?".
So they keep piling money into Iraq and not using money to secure the United States! Fighting them there so they don't come to America is foolish. Just ask those in London and Spain. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on our port security to protect you and your family? Did you read the article from this weekend where government officials snuck enough material to make two dirty bombs in from Mexico and Canada as a test?

The Dems are saying to increase port security. What have the GOP done?

Also, you guys have been saying for months that the Dems don't have any plans. Well now they have a plan and it is in writing. Now your argument is they are empty promises. What would be enough for you?

And to say the Dems have been weak on defense for 40 years is a foolish argument. You can debate if they have or haven't over the last 40 years. Why does that mean things can't change?
For the last several years, the Conservatives have wanted less government and less spending. That went out the window with this President, why couldn't the Dems defense plans change for the better?

All you people are about is empty rhetoric and calling people names.

Lies,

Are you an American? Do you know how our system of funding government programs works? Do you have any idea how our National Defense and Homeland Security operates?

If you do, you would know that CONGRESS passes authorization and appropriation acts. They the ones that provide the laws to provide for our military and Homeland Security. If the Dems what to increase port security and monitor radiation levels of every ship in every port (I haven't done the math to figure out how many billions or trillions of dollars that would cost, or if the technolgy even exists to operate such a program, or if it is logistically possible at the hundreds of ports in the US), all they have to do is craft some legislation for the program. Of course it doesn't do anything about smuggling in Sarin in a suitcase or anthraz spores in a Mason jar.

As for the extensive plan proposed by the Dims, can you provide me a link to this wonderful document. I have heard a lot of empty promises and patronizing rhetoric from the Dims, but have never seen this great plan.

I would also ask for your background to back up your opinion that the invasion of Iraq was a failure due to a "lack of preparedness of those planning the invasion". If defeating one of the largest armies in the world in record time, gaining more ground and capturing more terrority than any invading force has ever done is evidence of poor planning, I must assume you have no experience in military operations. Granted, in the aftermath of the invasion, our prediction of what would happen were wrong. But we have adapted to the changing combat environment. No military plan survives first contact with the enemy. The invastion plan was very successful. That you cannot deny.

If you look back on history just 70 year you will find that the invasion of Iwo Jima did not go as planned and thousands of Marines died to capture a tiny island in the Pacific. The D-Day invasion did not go as planned, and thousands died when they were trapped on the beachheads. There are similar cases in Korea and elsewhere. These are not examples of incompetence, but of the changing aspect of warfare.

I will grant that less government and spending went out the window. But it has been because of 9/11 that this has happened. Had 9/11 not occurred, I feel confident that we would have seen a reduction of government spending.

"Had 9/11 not occurred, I feel confident that we would have seen a reduction of government spending."

Say it with me, A-10: Had 9/11 not occurred, I feel confident that we would never have invaded Iraq.

Maf,
Why do you liberals always try to tie Iraq to 9-11?
Hasn't Mr. Bush made it clear enought for you yet?

maf53,

Sorry, but unless Saddam began fully cooperating with the UN inspectors, he was still a threat that needed to be dealt with.

The inspections were not working: he was hiding WMD programs, restricting access to sites, all while still producing banned weapons systems.

The Oil for Food programs was one of the worst UN scandles in history (and there are plenty to choose from). Instead of food and medicines going to the people of Iraq, billions were skimmed off for weapons systems, palaces, and bribes to the French, Germans, and Russians. As a result thousands of Iraqis died needlessly.

How long did you expect us to put up with Saddam's nonsense? Iraq had been under sanctions for 12 years. Were we to continue for another 12 years? Or 20 years? Or forever? How many more innocent Iraqis would have filled mass graves? How many more terrorists would have been trained at Salman Pak? Not only was Salman Pak a terrorist training camp, but it was also a WMD research facility. How many terrorist attacks would have financed or supported by Iraq? You do realize that Saddam was paying $25,000 for suicide bombings.

If you cannot see that a free Iraq is better than one under Saddam, you are truely beyond hope.

"I spent 27 years in the military"

Ah, A-10, this explains a lot.

Ah, A-10, this explains a lot.

Typical leftist - dissing the military servicemen and women so how many have you spit on today?

I gree!

The Bush administration is exactly what most liberals wanted for decades.

How many Democratic Presidential administration have been as diversify as the Bush Administration?

Rice and Powell = blacks
R. Perle, Wolforwitz and others = Jews
Yoo (co-auther the Patriot Act) = Asian
Alberto Gonzales = Mexican and a son of illegals
Cheney = dad of a gay daughter
Fiscal responsibility = sky rocket!
Gas Price = skyrocket!
Health care = skyrocket
Corruptions in Congress = skyrocket
Cost of living for Americans = skyrock!
Minimum wage = same!

I challenge any Democrats to beat Bush on the above issues.