Dems Vow to Get Bin Laden, Tough Natl Security (1 Viewer)

[easyt65]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security_1

The Democrats are Vowing to get Bin laden and be tougher on National Security! :shock: Really?!

Where was the tough National Seciruty and the defense of oun country and its people when Bin laden declared war on us in 1995? (Bin Laden Declares WAR on U.S - http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...06/12/015.html)

Where was the tough national Security policy when Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was killing Americans around the globe in the Kobar Tpwers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings? Where was the urgency to bring him to justice then?

In the 2004 election, John Kerry declared that he was an 'Internationalist', declared he put his full trust in the U.N., and stated that we should 'outsource' our National security to the U.N.

Since 9/11 the Democrats have approached the issue of our National Security by demanding that we surrender and retreat (Dean/Murtha) in the war aginst Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the war on terror. In fact, the Democrats have tried convincing the American people that the war on terror is all a lie.

Democrats, like Kerry, have voted against bills that would provide money for defense spending (for things like flak vests and other items our military needs) then flip-flopping before the public when called on it by saying ridiculously pathetic things like "I voted 'for' the money before I voted AGAINST it! )

Since 9/11, the Democrats have apporached the issue of our National Security by calling our troops in combat (DEFENDING this nation by fighting the terrorists, who seek to destroy us, abroad instead of at home) 'Nazis' and 'Terrorists' (Durbin and Kerry).

Since 9/11, Democrats have approached the issue of National Security by playing Party-1st politics and the politics of Personal Destruction, trying to take down a President during a time of war by BOGUS means for personal/political gain! Feingold submitted legislation calling for the punishment of th President for using a LEGAL program designed to combat the terrorist enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and killed many American lives!

Now Hillary puts her own Political Goals ahead of this nation! Pandering for the Latino vote, even referencing the Bible (I thought Dems hated the ignorant, in-bred, redneck, BIBLE-thumpers after 2004?) in her shameless attempt to win votes, she tries to convince the new Immigration legislation will mean the U.S. Goverment will go after Soup kitchen Workers and those who care for immigrant children/babies! Where is the TRUTH? Where is the concern for National Security? Why aren't the Democrats advocating the closing of the borders and the enforcement of the existing laws if they are so worried about Natl. Security?!

What a load of CR@P! While the Dems are gearing up for the Congressional Votes coming up and the '08 election, I hope they are ready to face their own history and past when the debates start! Kerry wasn't ready to face scrutiny over his own past - people didn't forget, about his or the Dem's actions of the past! If Clinton's administration is an example of what we can expect from the Democrats in regards to our defense and National Security, we should all be worried! Regarding Bin laden and National Security, the past speks for itself - the Dems are ALL :spin: and NO ACTION!

 

[Iriemon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security_1

The Democrats are Vowing to get Bin laden and be tougher on National Security! :shock: Really?!
...

I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting him "dead or alive" if we at least put our effort into the right country. (Hint to Bush Admin: Bin Laden is not in Iraq).

 

[aps]

Am I a terrible democrat if the first words that went through my head when I saw that article in the New York Times was, "Oh brother"?

 

[danarhea]

Oops, I posted this already..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=9547

 

[KCConservative]

I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting him "dead or alive" if we at least put our effort into the right country. (Hint to Bush Admin: Bin Laden is not in Iraq).

Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Am I a terrible democrat if the first words that went through my head when I saw that article in the New York Times was, "Oh brother"?

Yes you are Someone has been spiking your Pinot Grigio w/ neo-con Koolaid.

Here is a GOP summary of their effectiveness with regards to our National Security:

1. OBL still on the loose.

2. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

3. 9/11 commission gives Bush administration failing grades on preparedness for next attack.

4. Federal response to Katrina is perfect example of our unpreparedness for another emergency

5. Security at Airports and Ports still abysmal - GOP voted, unanimously I think, to not fund resources to improve security at ports and prepare for disatsters. HR4939

Right-Wing Blocks Funding For Port Security, Disaster Preparedness

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/port-security-funding/

6. Resources and manpower to secure the country, including National Guard, and Reserves are in Iraq.

7. America is hated throughout the world, now more than ever, we need to restore global alliances to fight terrorism.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.

He's saying just the opposite, I think you know that. We're in Iraq, bin Laden isn't.

 

[KCConservative]

7. America is hated throughout the world...

Not any more than you already do.

 

[Iriemon]

Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.

Since that is where he put the bulk of the invasion forces, that's probably a goes a ways to explain why we haven't found him, eh?

 

[KCConservative]

Since that is where he put the bulk of the invasion forces, that's probably a goes a ways to explain why we haven't found him, eh?

In other words, you have no link to anyone saying bin Laden is in Iraq. Thanks. Now, are you suggesting we have no presence in Afghanistan?

 

[Iriemon]

In other words, you have no link to anyone saying bin Laden is in Iraq. Thanks. Now, are you suggesting we have no presence in Afghanistan?

Well, since I never said that anyone in the Bush admin said bin Laden is in Iraq, I didn't need to defend a straw man.

And where did I say we have no presence in Afganistan?

 

[KCConservative]

Well, since I never said that anyone in the Bush admin said bin Laden is in Iraq, I didn't need to defend a straw man.

And where did I say we have no presence in Afganistan?

Your clever "hint for Bush", saying that bin Laden isn't in Iraq tries to paint the President as believing he is in Iraq. He never said that or implied that. This was your spin.

Saying the "bulk of our invasions" were in Iraq is untrue. We fight the war on terror around the globe. In Iraq, in Afghanistan...even here at home. Again, your spin.

 

[Iriemon]

Your clever "hint for Bush", saying that bin Laden isn't in Iraq tries to paint the President as believing he is in Iraq. He never said that or implied that. This was your spin.

Saying the "bulk of our invasions" were in Iraq is untrue. We fight the war on terror around the globe. In Iraq, in Afghanistan...even here at home. Again, your spin.

My "hint for Bush" was based on the fact that after 9-11, and saying he'd get bin Laden dead or alive, he put the bulk off our invasion forces into Iraq. That is spin?

There are over 100,000 US troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afganistan. For the first year there was less than 10,000. Me saying the bulk of our invasion forces are in Iraq is spin?

 

[Ausonius]

In the 1970's, the world launched the greatest manhunt in history for the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele. All the while, Dr. Mengele was living quietly, and even practicing medicine, under the assumed name of “Jose” Mengele, and, under this elegant ruse, no one could find him until it was discovered that he had suffered a heart attack, and drowned on the beach at Sao Paulo, Brazil.

With today’s advanced surveillance and intelligence gathering systems, it is difficult to imagine how a man who is 6'4" and on dialysis can escape detection. Perhaps the real reason Usama Bin Laden can't be found in the mountain caves of Afghanistan or Pakistan is because he is being protected by people living in Kennebunkport and the White House in Washington.

 

[KCConservative]

My "hint for Bush" was based on the fact that after 9-11, and saying he'd get bin Laden dead or alive, he put the bulk off our invasion forces into Iraq. That is spin?

There are over 100,000 US troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afganistan. For the first year there was less than 10,000. Me saying the bulk of our invasion forces are in Iraq is spin?

Except that your remarks were to suggest that Bush is looking for bin Laden in Iraq. That is, most definitely, spin. We are not looking for bin Laden in Iraq and no one has ever said such a thing. To say it here, is pure spin.

So you admit we have a presence in Afghanistan. That's a good start. So, you see, we fight terror in both places. We hunt bin Laden, we fight terrorists, we throw out terrorist dictators, we help Iraq rebuild, etc.

Glad I could help keep you honest.

 

[Iriemon]

Except that your remarks were to suggest that Bush is looking for bin Laden in Iraq. That is, most definitely, spin. We are not looking for bin Laden in Iraq and no one has ever said such a thing. To say it here, is pure spin.

So you admit we have a presence in Afghanistan. That's a good start. So, you see, we fight terror in both places. We hunt bin Laden, we fight terrorists, we throw out terrorist dictators, we help Iraq rebuild, etc.

Glad I could help keep you honest.

Thanks for the clarification as to what I meant.

 

[KCConservative]

Thanks for the clarification as to what I meant.

No problem, Iriemon. Glad I could help.

 

[Iriemon]

No problem, Iriemon. Glad I could help.

Great. Now that we got that cleared up, how is putting the bulk of our troops in Iraq helping to get bin Laden dead or alive?

 

[G-Man]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security_1

The Democrats are Vowing to get Bin laden and be tougher on National Security! :shock: Really?!

Where was the tough National Seciruty and the defense of oun country and its people when Bin laden declared war on us in 1995? (Bin Laden Declares WAR on U.S - http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...06/12/015.html)

Where was the tough national Security policy when Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was killing Americans around the globe in the Kobar Tpwers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings? Where was the urgency to bring him to justice then?

In the 2004 election, John Kerry declared that he was an 'Internationalist', declared he put his full trust in the U.N., and stated that we should 'outsource' our National security to the U.N.

Since 9/11 the Democrats have approached the issue of our National Security by demanding that we surrender and retreat (Dean/Murtha) in the war aginst Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the war on terror. In fact, the Democrats have tried convincing the American people that the war on terror is all a lie.

Democrats, like Kerry, have voted against bills that would provide money for defense spending (for things like flak vests and other items our military needs) then flip-flopping before the public when called on it by saying ridiculously pathetic things like "I voted 'for' the money before I voted AGAINST it! )

Since 9/11, the Democrats have apporached the issue of our National Security by calling our troops in combat (DEFENDING this nation by fighting the terrorists, who seek to destroy us, abroad instead of at home) 'Nazis' and 'Terrorists' (Durbin and Kerry).

Since 9/11, Democrats have approached the issue of National Security by playing Party-1st politics and the politics of Personal Destruction, trying to take down a President during a time of war by BOGUS means for personal/political gain! Feingold submitted legislation calling for the punishment of th President for using a LEGAL program designed to combat the terrorist enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and killed many American lives!

Now Hillary puts her own Political Goals ahead of this nation! Pandering for the Latino vote, even referencing the Bible (I thought Dems hated the ignorant, in-bred, redneck, BIBLE-thumpers after 2004?) in her shameless attempt to win votes, she tries to convince the new Immigration legislation will mean the U.S. Goverment will go after Soup kitchen Workers and those who care for immigrant children/babies! Where is the TRUTH? Where is the concern for National Security? Why aren't the Democrats advocating the closing of the borders and the enforcement of the existing laws if they are so worried about Natl. Security?!

What a load of CR@P! While the Dems are gearing up for the Congressional Votes coming up and the '08 election, I hope they are ready to face their own history and past when the debates start! Kerry wasn't ready to face scrutiny over his own past - people didn't forget, about his or the Dem's actions of the past! If Clinton's administration is an example of what we can expect from the Democrats in regards to our defense and National Security, we should all be worried! Regarding Bin laden and National Security, the past speks for itself - the Dems are ALL :spin: and NO ACTION!

Well I ain't a Dem so I won't argue regarding the above but I am interested in how having full diplomatic ties with the Taleban and inviting them over as guests to the Whitehouse (prior to 9/11) is acting tough on terror? I would be interested in how you can defend the republicans on this one.

Whilst the Taleban (who were best buddies with Osama and Al-q) were busying planning the 9/11 attacks Bush was busying making oil deals with them. Tough on terror...I think not.

Bush/Republicans are just as guilty as all before them. Action only followed AFTER 9/11. Perhaps if he had been tough on terror before this atrocity it could have been avoided.

You are right on one point though..the past does speak for itself. Osama was well known to be in Afghanistan before 9/11 but Bush still invited the Afghan govt. over to the Whitehouse to make oil deals. That says a great deal about the Republican party on this matter.

 

[disneydude]

Your clever "hint for Bush", saying that bin Laden isn't in Iraq tries to paint the President as believing he is in Iraq. He never said that or implied that. This was your spin.

Yet once again KCC you are responding to a post without READING it. The point of the post that you are responding to is that GWB's attack on Iraq in response to 9-11 is misguided because Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq.

 

[Iriemon]

Well I ain't a Dem so I won't argue regarding the above but I am interested in how having full diplomatic ties with the Taleban and inviting them over as guests to the Whitehouse (prior to 9/11) is acting tough on terror? I would be interested in how you can defend the republicans on this one.

Whilst the Taleban (who were best buddies with Osama and Al-q) were busying planning the 9/11 attacks Bush was busying making oil deals with them. Tough on terror...I think not.

Bush/Republicans are just as guilty as all before them. Action only followed AFTER 9/11. Perhaps if he had been tough on terror before this atrocity it could have been avoided.

You are right on one point though..the past does speak for itself. Osama was well known to be in Afghanistan before 9/11 but Bush still invited the Afghan govt. over to the Whitehouse to make oil deals. That says a great deal about the Republican party on this matter.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a cite for this information?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Yes you are Someone has been spiking your Pinot Grigio w/ neo-con Koolaid.

Here is a GOP summary of their effectiveness with regards to our National Security:

1. OBL still on the loose.

Yes the LoJack device isn't working.

2. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

Because of the indifference to security shown by Clinton. Bombings, emabassies, warships, offers for Bin Laden......The wall essentially established by Clinton to keep agencies apart. Able Danger information IGNORED by clinton that would have eliminated the threat well before the attack...

3. 9/11 commission gives Bush administration failing grades on preparedness for next attack.

And yet liberals fight security measures... Ironic eh...LOL

4. Federal response to Katrina is perfect example of our unpreparedness for another emergency

This was a global first in the modern world. Sorry .. but no one could have been adequately prepared. But in the end I will grant you it was and is being handled badly. But I can't see how you place the blame on the president. The local goverments are the ones that truly ***d this up. But in the end there is no excuse for the lack of progress being made in the area

5. Security at Airports and Ports still abysmal - GOP voted, unanimously I think, to not fund resources to improve security at ports and prepare for disatsters. HR4939

Were not allowed to search anyone but blue haired, white little old ladies. Thats the type of security your bitching for that the security you get. I agree with the fact that security is lacking. But it seems there is a portion of this country that wants everythign without giving up anything.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/port-security-funding/

6. Resources and manpower to secure the country, including National Guard, and Reserves are in Iraq.

Theres business to take care of there and will be for a while. Hasn't been a single attack on American soil since we arrived however.

7. America is hated throughout the world, now more than ever, we need to restore global alliances to fight terrorism.

And I care why? We have always been hated. Global alliances with whom? Fance....LOL they leave us out to dry every chance they get... Germany ... LOL does whats best for Germany and always will. Same goes with Russia.. There nice when they need us and when they don't they complain. Stop worrying about what people that don't like you in the first place think of you....

 

[easyt65]

What the heck does Katrina have to do with Bin Laden or National Security?

Bringing up the almost criminal leadership of the local and State Goverment, their knowledge that such a disaster could happen for years yet did nothing, and the embezzling of millions ear-marked for maintaining and upgrading the levies, waiting until the last minute to declare a disaster, leaving their own people stranded while parking lots remained jam-packed with buses that could have been used to evacuate people, and the comment afterwards about making NO a Chocolate City has NOTHING to do with National Security

:roll:

 

[Captain America]

The dems are just as clueless as the 'publicans. All they have to offer is a buncha election politics and hot air. Their pansy approach to "high ground" politics is only going to lose them another election. They need to get themselves a Karl Rove and get down and dirty in the mud if they intend on even competing. It matters not if the mud slinging is accurate. American voters are gullible. They need to capitolize on that. Not realizing that makes them look less smart than their counterparts. They are disillusioned to think otherwise, in my humble opinion. The only thing scarier :shock: than keeping our republican politicians is the thought of replacing them with democrats. But that's just my .02. I am a man without a party. And you KNOW how much I like a party.

:2party:

It has been said, "Better the enemy you know than the one you don't."

But, in our situation, I don't which is worse.

 

[G-Man]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a cite for this information?

Well any google search should suffice but you could try :-


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap4-3.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

http://www.cam.net.uk/home/nimmann/peace/opium.htm

I just found out we gave these criminals $43 million in May 2001 because of their efforts in fighting the drug war!!! Incredible!! We know the Taleban are state sponsors of terrorism and we know they are harbouring OBL and we give them $43 million!! I wonder into which terrorists pocket that ended up?

These don't make good reading for the Dems either because they were also trying to strike billion pound oil deals with these guys back in 1997 when they were fully aware Osama was hiding out in Afghanistan.

I do find the role of Cheney when he was at Halliburton quite interesting...'we go where the business is'. I guess he didn't have any problems working with the killers of US servicemen back then but it was a LOT of $$$ I suppose:shock:

I think it is quite clear that BOTH Dems and Repubs (including this present administration) put oil,money and profit before national security. This only changed because of 9/11, prior to that GW was just as bad.