The Hill's Stoddard: Dems "need to prove themselves on national security"
A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, repeated the much-parroted myth that Democrats are weak or are perceived as weak on national security. On the January 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, she said:
CARLSON: One sentence because we're almost out of time.
STODDARD: There's another question, which is balancing the concerns. Bush is always telling us if we leave, terrorism will thrive. And the Democrats, who need to prove themselves on national security, are not making the case that we -- by depleting our readiness and resources in Iraq --
CARLSON: Well, that's a good point.
STODDARD: -- we can no longer neutralize a terror threat elsewhere.
CARLSON: Right. Then we become so physically weak --
STODDARD: Forget how we look. How about, like, our security?
CARLSON: That's right.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The newly sworn in and democratic majority congress just push through, with bi-partisan support by the way, the rest of the 9/11 commission plan to help secure America? Hmm, weak on national security? Why didn't the republicans do this when they were in charge?
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[
Bush is always telling us if we leave, terrorism will thrive.
Yes, and Bush is such a credible source of information on everything Iraqi. Shall I list them, or will other MMFA posters be so kind as to spell out Bush's missteps in Iraq. OK, I start with the obvious one:
NO WMD
So, who's next?
no ties to Al Quaeda
none of Iraq's neighbors considered it a threat.
The BND (German Intelligence) knew that the guy who claimed to have pictures of chemical weapons labs was a drunk who needed money and whose name they didn't know. They told the CIA this. It was apparently ignored...
...a drunk who needed money and whose name they didn't know...
The perfect republican presidential candidate.
Do they have evidence of him hitting on underage boys?
Studds didn't just 'hit' on under-age boys. He admitted having sex with underage boys. In spite of this, democrats and democratic voters thought he shouild remain in the Congress for 13 more years after admitting this crime.
Hypocrisy.
Perhaps you can tell us about the 3 terrorist attacks on the German railway system last year that, through nothing but sheer luck, failed to kill the hundreds that might have been killed had they suceeded.
Also. "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11". And "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". I hear many Repub/Neocons make these statements even still to justify the Iraq war.
and you still don't believe.
If the Al Qaeda force in Iraq is not defeated when American orces are removed from Iraq, where do you believe that force will be redeployed to?
So by drawing down troops in Iraq we would "become so physically weak" that we would be unable to "neutralize a terror threat elsewhere" and our national security would be weakened? Wow, apparently there are still people who will buy into the line about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here."
I believe Stoddard was referring to the criticism that the use of resources in Iraq - not the drawing them down - has weakened our military and our ability to respond to threats. However, as for the comment that Democrats not making the case for that...well...I believe the case has already been made by our own military commanders and other experts.
...I read that wrong.
There is a point being made by the person transcribed, but as usual, it's hard to spot beneath the glare of the Lights, and the Camera, and the Action!
If you isolate only what the one person said, it comes out as this:
STODDARD: Bush is always telling us if we leave, terrorism will thrive. And the Democrats, who need to prove themselves on national security, are not making the case that we -- by depleting our readiness and resources in Iraq -- can no longer neutralize a terror threat elsewhere. Forget how we look. How about, like, our security?
Which further may be this:
"Bush is always telling us if we leave [Iraq], terrorism will thrive. [But] Democrats are not making the case that by depleting our readiness and resources in Iraq, we can no longer neutralize a terror threat elsewhere."
Which is a fair enough statement... if there were some Democrat who thought they were making that case against Bush's depletion of our forces in Iraq, then rather than bicker with the woman, I'd think they should just take her comments as an invitation to make the case better...
Which would be my advice also.
(And it seems easier to write things out, and make sense of them that way, than to chance words on the fly and from the seat of your pants, as you sit there before the glare of the Lights, and the Camera, and the televised Action!
..and perhaps say "Forget how we look. How about, like, our security?"
That made me laugh... I like a good laugh.)
Bush set the bar so low that success can be fighting your way out of a wet paper bag.
then you must be deleriously happy.
There is a national strategy on Iraq including detailed conditions for victory. I don't see anything particulrly easy about them. [link to www.whitehouse.gov]
If these are not easily achieved objectives, then you are factually incorrect.
...how exactly have the Republicans been 'tough' on terrorism or national security. I know this is one of their so-called 'strengths'. However, I see none of it. In fact, they've made matters worse. And, please do not say "well, have there been any attacks since 9/11?" Meaningless.
This so-called Republican "advantage" has been fabricated by the Right Wing propaganda machine. They've made such a mess in Iraq, and wasted so much blood and money, that their only hope politically is to keep Democrats on the defensive, which they do very well.
It's the Republicans who need to prove themselves on national security. Because the American people are well aware of the mess they've made in Iraq and the so-callled "war on terror."
If the Republicans don't "prove themselves" pretty fast, they will lose even more Congressional seats and the presidency in 2008.
Actions like this: [link to www.time.com]
This is the work of Democratic appointees in the leadership positions of the FBI. Had they gotten a search warrant for Mousaoui's computer, they would have unmaksed the entire 9-11 terror plot.
The republicans don't need to lie about the democrats. All they need do is remind the public of this bungling that led to 3,000 American deaths. However, the liberally biased media in this country doesn't even show pictures of the WTC falling anymore, much less mention egregious failures like this. So we have the spector of ignoramuses like you discounting the threat of Jihadists and condemning Bush's efforts to do something effective about it. We saw what Clinton did about this, basically nothing. Elect more Democrts, and this is what they will do, nothing about the Jihad against the West.
Because that's one of the sentences that the media talking heads have memorized about them. It doesn't have to be true or anything. That would require brains from newscasters in addition to good looks, loud voices, and expensive porcelain veneers on their teeth.
and the corporate Bobble-heads in the media conclude you're "tough on terror," instead of what they are: "Stupid on Terror."
They can shriek, bare their teeth and shake branches so much better than Democrats.
MMFA has presented several polls over the past few years which show that a majority of Americans trust Democrats over Republicans on National Security. This does not mean that Democrats have proved themselves on National Security. It only means that a majority of the American people are willing to give Democrats the opportunity to prove themselves on National Security.
I respectfully ask how the Republicans have 'proven' themselves on matters of nat'l security? They just seem more aggressive and willing to use force.
I absolutely agree; the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11, all by itself, proves nothing about Bush's effectiveness in fighting terrorism.
A hypothetical: an elderly man drives twice a week to his church and the store, both of which are four blocks from his home--and nowhere else. For years on end he drives in this way, and consequently has a spotless driving record. But this spotless driving record does not, all by itself, establish that the man is a safe or effective driver. Granted, it doesn't prove the reverse, but it doesn't have to in order to make the point. We've been terrorism-free for five years here in the US, but that may be due to many things other than Republican leadership.
Given the murky nature of Homeland Security's actual contributions to homeland security (beyond meaningless color-coded alerts), maybe there's a better analogy: an elderly person who doesn't actually drive AT ALL, but who keeps a current driver's license for bureaucratic reasons. His record will be spotless too.
mmfa is great at cherry picking poll results and trumpeting them as some statement of truth. Well here's one...from a recent CBS poll cited by mmfa:
82% said that they do not think the democrat party has developed a plan for dealing with Iraq.
- Democrats...are perceived as weak on national security - Stoddard
Using mmfa standards...it appears that Stoddard has a point.
cite how many people believe the republic party has a plan for Iraq?
Republicans have a plan. It just involves lots of Americans paying and dying for it.
It's all about results to me. Granted, we haven't been attacked since 9/11, but I don't credit Bush anymore for that than I would blame him if we were attacked. It isn't fair, either way - there are way too many ramifications and circumstances that do not allow that simplistic "scorecard" assessment to happen.
In any event, Bush certainly has compromised our security with this Iraq mess, as it seems apparent now. I never used to think or say that, but it's now undeniable for me. I certainly don't believe you can negotiate with terrorists or placate enemies, but there are strategic and political tools, albeit from a position of strength, that we can employ to engage countries like Iran and Syria.........we have to.
Bush and his neocon buddies seem to have little interest in that approach and I believe we are owed at least an objective look at those options from our leaders. If that comes from Democrats, and I don't mean the "Ted Kennedys" of the party or the far left factions, but perhaps like Biden or Wesley Clark, then they would have my support for their stance on our national security.
I agree with that statement. I also agree that we have a dearth of statesmen and leaders in congress...on both sides of the aisle.
I do not include Biden and Clark in the category of potential problem solvers. The most vocal and visible leaders of the democrat party...are in the loon category. Having said that...the republican party doesn't have many real peaches either.
My beliefs are conservative and I don't follow any marching orders from the republican party. A good stiff broom would be in order...most of the gumps in congress need swept out.
I too am an conservative, not a Republican. Their stint on this war, spending, immigration, Schiavo, gay marriage amendment distractions, etc have left me with a very sour taste in my mouth where that party and it's direction and leaders have gone.
I was glad they got the boot last November, give the Democrats more of a voice and a stake and see what they do. And I agree, the far fringes get most of the attention from both parties, but smart governing is more centrist. And compromise and gridlock.........Let the Democrats and the Republicans prove their worth on national security. It's a new ball game - zero to zero.
the Democrats are at least 50% moderate, and none are really radical. So what do you mean by 'loons'?
We swept a good number of the Cons out.
But it's only a start, we need to sweep out a lot more Publicans.
Members of the ReNAMBLAcan party are in the War Criminal category
...and I don't mean the "Ted Kennedys" of the party or the far left factions, but perhaps like Biden or Wesley Clark...
Why should that matter, assuming the policy is proper?
I don't believe, based on their historical preferences and opinions, that they offer what I would support on sensitive measures concerning our national security.
You obviously disagree.
At times, Tommy, you offer cogent arguments or interesting insight. Then there's posts like that. Slow down and think before posting.
Did offer my opinion on Kennedy or his ability? No. I simply stated concisely the hypothetical situation you offered in a prior post and asked a question.
If you review your earlier post, you indicated that some sort of engagement of Syria and Iran was worthy of "an objective look." (Btw, I agree.) You then essentially added the caveat unless it was Kennedy etc. offering the objective look. Perhaps what you meant to write was that you don't have confidence in Kennedy to provide an objective review, but that's not what you wrote. Perhaps you were also thinking of some grant of trust and responsibility in said Democrat. That was also not clear.
Quite frankly, if Ralph Nader happened to come up with a good suggestion for Iraq, I'd support it. I suspect you would too. That doesn't mean we support the man, just the idea. That was the crux of my question regarding your Kennedy comment.
Slow down a bit and I think you'll find yourself at odds with others on this board far less.
I'll ignore the condescension and take your suggestions under consideration.
If Senator Kennedy offers up a solution that I support, I will say so. I don't hold out hope, however.
As I very plainly and clearly stated, that is my opinion. I am sorry if that puts me at odds with others here.
You seem to be intent on conflict where there is none. Did I question your opinion of Kennedy's ability? No. Did I state my own opinion of him? No. So, why do you think your opinion of Kennedy has anything to do with my comments regarding your being at odds with others?
When it comes to keeping our citizens free of attacks from our enemies, I would not want Ted Kennedy as the keeper of our security.
But that is strictly my opinion.
I didnt want George Bush in charge of our security and viola, its clear I was right.
... Your statement that objective instruction or suggestion re this Iraq debacle should not be heeded from so-called 'far-left' Democrats is inherently partisan. I'm sorry. Regardless of one's track record, if a Democrat like T. Kennedy has a good idea, that should be heeded without immediately discounting it b/c more conservatives think he is a 'loon'. By who's standard? Wesley's? Come on...
All one has to do is remember that whole Dubai ports deal... was that suggested by a left-wing loon? Boy-o-boy.
One's track record is definitely worth considering when they propose any ideas. Of course it should be given the attention and respect that would befit any Senator - but it also should be scrutinized and evaluated and that Senator's "track record" in context.
Based on what I believe are Ted Kennedy's views, I would listen to what he said but I doubt, honestly, whether I would support them. But he could prove me wrong at any time, that is a possibility.
...and, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of Kennedy either (as I've said in the past). However, good ideas are good ideas whether they come from the right or the left. There should be a high level of scrutiny that extends far beyond political affiliation.
Also, your notion of zero-to-zero is a nice sentiment, but I don't think it's currently possible. Are the Democrats doomed to fail before they even begin? Why such a free-pass for everything Republican over the last 6 years (esp by the press). Why such a jaundiced eye toward the Democrats - who have literally been excluded from the proceedings. You often claim that, had the Democrats been in total power instead of the Republicans, things would be just as bad. I don't think so. I don't think the history of the two parties suggests that either.
"You often claim that, had the Democrats been in total power instead of the Republicans, things would be just as bad"
**********************
I have no idea where you got this from, because I have never said that. What I have said is that, in my opinion, the legislative and executive branches being dominated and held by one particular party is a recipe for corruption, greed and power hungry ill-conceived laws, etc. Divided government works best, at least for me - both parties battle it out, keep each other in check for the most part, and the cream of ideas usually see the best chance at the light of day.
Whether the even scorecard is possible, we will have to wait and see. The public spoke last November and hardly endorsed one-sided, meaningless partisanship ........so those that don't heed the results and proceed to ram their way full steam ahead, without a little fair play, will hopefully be headed back to their hometown come next election.
...maybe I over-dramatized your sentiment. At this point - As TheRick says below - the Republicans have much to atone for. I think the Dems deserve a serious break... and should be given even a modicum of free-reign the Republicans have enjoyed. The events of the last 6 years...and utter failure of every of Bush's plans... calls for that, I think. Let's talk fair? That's fair.
Repubs: -17 Dems: +2
they lead by 26
Didnt you say if we thought Howard Dean was the guy to bring us back to an electoral victory we were diluted? Hmmmm. By your track record I guess I shouldnt take your views of Kennedy seriously either.
From the O'Rielly factor 1/7/07, have a listen:
[link to securingamerica.com]
Me thinks that if Bill O was trying to shout Gen. Clark down he lost.
"82% said that they do not think the democrat party has developed a plan for dealing with Iraq."
-----
100% of informed Americans say that anyone who uses the phrase "democrat party" is too stupid to allow to waste oxygen.
"82% said that they do not think the democrat party has developed a plan for dealing with Iraq...- Democrats...are perceived as weak on national security - Stoddard"
What is the connection between these two items, according to you? Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security - there were no ties to 9/11. The war bolsters the "America is evil" mantra that is the bread and butter of terrorists, of course, but that's a situation Bush created.
So apparently if Clinton had started a war of choice that increased terrorist recruitment, you would say that Republicans in Congress would have to figure out how to get out of it, or else they would be "weak on national security". Is that how you would see it?
The connection is obvious...except to those that believe global warming will cause a 17 foot rise in the level of the ocean.
The U.S. congress...when authorizing military use against Iraq...cited many reasons why Iraq was a threat to our national security. Those reasons had nothing to do with the events of 9/11...multiple violations of UN resolutions, murdering his own people and supporting terrorism to name a few.
Clinton, for christ's sake, can't you ever get over the fact that he's gone...but since you brought him up...it was a stated goal of the Clinton administrtion that Saddam should be removed from power.
The obvious attempt to deflect the discussion...by dropping this turd of a canard...is patently moronic.
82% of the respondents in the poll think the democrat party does not have a plan to resolve the situation in Iraq...which makes Stoddard's statement that they are perceived as weak on national defense entirely rational...whether it is true or not...is another debate.
the republic party's plan for resolving the situation in Iraq?
but what the Bushies are saying now differs completely as to what they were saying to get us to follow their leader. They linked 9/11, told us of WMD, and said they were an immenent threat.
After being proven wrong on all accounts is when they came up with the other BS. And we all (including you) know it.
- After being proven wrong on all accounts is when they came up with the other BS -
You're confusing your agruments. Yours is about the political maneuvering to sustain public support AFTER the war began.
The Iraq War Resolution...enacted BEFORE the war...was quite clear about the reasons and the consequences. It was supported by an overwhelming number of congressman and cited a myriad of reasons for the eventual fate of Saddam and Iraq.
The arguable fact that democrats are weak on national defense is hard for democrats to swallow. But, Stoddard's comment about that perception, was echoed by 82% of the CBS poll respondents.
In the mmfa world of journalism...polls provide evidence of absolute truths....and that causes me to...roflol.
...all boiled down to WMDs, and the repeated assertion of their certain presence in Iraq. Look it up.
Certainly the resolution was based in part on WMD. However, the myriad of other reasons were a major concern
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire...supporting and harboring terrorist organizations...continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region.
Whereas Iraq...refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq...has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States...firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
Whereas Iraq...continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations...repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council...repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council.
Whereas Iraq...ongoing support for international terrorist groups...direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire...
The lack of outrage against Saddam vs. the outrage against Pres. Bush is telling. I firmly believe that Pres. Bush has done what he thinks best for the security of America...you and many others think differently...que sera sera.
Wesley--"The lack of outrage against Saddam vs. the outrage against Pres. Bush is telling."
We were outraged that Bush would have the gall to invade a country that posed no threat to us, and divert attention from the real threat-- Afghanistan. Were you not outraged also?
Please, don't insinuate that since we were outraged at Bush's screw ups, that we therefore were on the side of Saddam. Understand, we are intelligent people who are capable of being outraged at more than one screw up at a time.
- we are intelligent people who are capable of being outraged at more than one screw up at a time. -
Multiple fits of anger...a real mark of intelligence...oh my aching side.
You asked where is the outrage. I answered. You then express that it's funny that we (I) are (am) outraged.
I mistakenly thought you were trying to have a legitamate discussion of the topic YOU brought up. In the future I won't mistake your posts for anything resembling legitamacy.
Wesley said: "Multiple fits of anger...a real mark of intelligence...oh my aching side."
As I said, we are capable of outrage to more than one screw up at a time. This only requires cognative thought, and a bit of reasoning. I now understand how this concept escapes you.
During the 80's when I was screaming to anyone that would listen that he should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity and Raygun was so strongly supporting him? At the time his worst attrocities were ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE? You conservatives are LATE on the Saddam is a monster bandwagon. Only when it became ideologically servicable did you care SQUAT about what Saddam was doing, you have NO credibility on this issue.
There are 14 "Whereases" in the resolution, and you've only mentioned 4. And, you've made a bit of a hash of them...
"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire...supporting and harboring terrorist organizations...."
The words omitted in your first ellipsis are about WMD inspections. Your second phrase is about a different canard altogether--Saddam's imaginary links w/Al Qaeda. Of the remaining 10 whereases, 9 of them are explicitly and clearly based on WMDs, and on the assumption that Saddam had 'em.
I was mistaken in saying "all" parts of the resolution pertained to WMDs, but the great majority of them did. The WMD canard was very much a feature of the buildup to war, not merely of the post-invasion spin.
Your original point is completely mistaken, and you've tried to defend it by deliberately, selectively quoting the resolution. I've seen you do that before--creative reproduction along with smug, highminded blather about fidelity to sources--which you don't uphold at all. I guess it explains your ubiquitous ellipses, which I thought were just signs of a woozy half-articulateness, but which are in fact a conscious style choice that enables you to lie about your sources.
- you've tried to defend it by deliberately, selectively quoting the resolution. -
Nope, I was quite clear about the information:
- "Certainly the resolution was based in part on WMD. However, the myriad of other reasons were a major concern" -
The WMD aspects of the resolution are obvious. I simply cited many of the other reasons for the authorization of military force. You may choose to ignore them...I don't.
The resolution is overwhelmingly concerned with WMDs. The asserted presence of WMDs in Iraq is clearly primary; it's not merely one of an array of other problems Iraq poses.
Your original claim was that the WMD flap only became an issue after the war began, and that clearly isn't the case. The resolution is mostly about WMDs, Congress voted for it because of WMDs, and the whole mess enjoyed popular support for a while because of WMDs. Even the most determined rightwing hacks aren't bothering to argue otherwise anymore. Except you.
Anymore than YOU not having a credible plan to build a time machine means you are weak on science. They are not the same, the polls that show dems have more credibilty among people on national security issues is MORE pertinent.
"Those reasons had nothing to do with the events of 9/11...multiple violations of UN resolutions, murdering his own people and supporting terrorism to name a few."
What do those things have to do with OUR national security? Support of terrorism against Israel? I missed the part where they became our 51st state, apparently. Murdering his own people? Is Iraq part of the USA, so those victims are our citizens? Why is it that if that is a national security concern that we didn't address it during the 80's? You can't seem to explain the "obvious" part of this connection.
"it was a stated goal of the Clinton administrtion that Saddam should be removed from power."
Was it a stated goal to invade, dismantle the government and invite civil war?
"The obvious attempt to deflect the discussion...by dropping this turd of a canard...is patently moronic."
Yet somehow it stumps you. If it's "rational" for Stoddard to make his comment, then in the scenario I presented you must say Republicans would be weak on national security. It's entirely analogous, and obviously not a deflection at all. I'm not surprised that you can't address it, of course.
And bringing up a simple misreading on my part, which I admitted, to try to intimidate me...you must be joking. If you want to intimidate me, try making a cogent and honest argument for once in your life. I might pass out from sheer shock. At the very least, show a hint of maturity, please.
First, your error on global warming was not a simple misreading. You read the post and your fingers moved to the keyboard and typed the words 17 feet...showing an obvious lack of knowledge on the consequences of global warming.
Second, anyone that is intimidated on a discussion forum is pretty pathetic...you have my sympathy.
Third, I shall return to the practice of mostly ignoring your pedantic dispalys...marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects...flail away.
...since you're not addressing the "obvious connection" you said was there?
"First, your error on global warming was not a simple misreading."
And then you go on to describe...a misreading. It's the difference between ' and ". If you actually read the thread it had just been mentioned that if all the ice caps melted the sea level would rise 300+ feet, so 17 feet in that context didn't seem unlikely over 100 years. Shame on me for not being perfect and not being familiar with the particular report you were citing. Oh the shame! The ignominy! If this is really all you have to try to embarrass me, that speaks volumes.
"Second, anyone that is intimidated on a discussion forum is pretty pathetic...you have my sympathy.
I didn't say I was intimidated, just the opposite. I said that was your goal. Anyone with any sense knows that I can't be cowed, which is a category which obviously does not include you.
"Third, I shall return to the practice of mostly ignoring your pedantic dispalys..."
What is a "dispaly"? How dare you make up words! This wasn't a simple misreading of your typing on your part, obviously.
If you don't have a genuine response, then don't say anything. Don't give me phony excuses about Saddam's actions towards Israel or his own people to claim a threat to the USA. Don't try to shame me over a simple, honest mistake. Address the point or shut the hell up. Since you are never capable of doing the former, I suggest you do the latter, instead of your typical pathetic "dispaly".
STODDARD: Forget how we look. How about, like, our security?
She's like, totally right. Our security is, like, totally important and stuff. Duh!!!!
the day the "Valley Girls" hit the airwaves. Looks like it has arrived. As if we really needed another source for weakening the language skills we should exercise (Ya Know, Um, Ah, As You Know, etc).
...if we followed plans like the one presented by Jack Murtha, we wouldn't just pull out of the region entirely and not be able to repond to terrorism.
Murtha's plan called for a force of around 40,000-60,000 to remain in bases in the region, like Doha, Qatar, or Kuwait, and be available for quick deployment and/or strikes on suspected terror camps.
So, instead of trying to play policeman and trying to stop Sunnis and Shia from killing each other, we'd actually be able to use our forces to fight terrorism in the region. We'd be better able to strike at terror camps/bases. He also wanted to increase our special forces and intelligence assests in the region.
Yet, the pundits want us to believe the Dems would just withdraw from Iraq, and then halt the "War on Terror" as well.
Is that Iraq has NOTHING to do with the "War on Turr." It is not helping us in that effort. Fighting Worldwide terrorism will require police tactics as well as rapid-strike special forces and cooperation with local governments. The Iraq fiasco is an illegal occupation of a foreign country...that's all. The sooner we get out of there, the sooner we can put our forces to work fighting the real "War on Turr".
Just about every Dem that ran said that throughout the election. Will they stand by thier word? Will this happen Now? Or later?
Last I checked, separation of powers was an important part of the constitution. Will Bush simply veto any attempt to restrict his war-making powers? I think he might...
Bush & Co. were in the White House for 9/11... and they have unleashed hell in Iraq... quit Roving us, Stodd...
and as many people voted Republican in 2004 because it made them feel safe, one thing seems to be brushed aside;
On September 11, 2001, the USA saw the most colossal intelligence, defense and security f**k-up in the history of the nation.
It happened under the watch of the current administration.
We have since lost as many American lives as were lost on 9/11, not to mention many times more innocent lives of others, in a country we invaded that was not involved on 9/11.
And there is still a group of people in this country supporting the Republican party because of their response to 9/11 ?
Yikes.
What do we need to do to prove our interest in peace and security? Preemptively attack and occupy a country that is no threat to us?
That Democrats "need to prove themselves on national security" is, in my opinion, fair commentary. Democrats have, in fact, hit the ground running on the issue of national security by quickly moving to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission... a great first step in dispelling any "'myths" that Democrats are weak on national security.
The offensive part of Stoddard's remarks, though, is that which suggests that the Democrats are weakening our national security by "depleting our readiness and resources in Iraq." Once again, the right wing would have the country believe that the Iraq war is the key to our national security. Just to review a few inconvenient truths, Iraq did not attack America on 9/11; Iraq was not on the verge of using nuclear weapons against America (Iraq did not even have an active nuclear weapons program); and the violence in Iraq today is sectarian.
The only argument that can be made that Iraq is now crucial to our national security is admittedly what might happen if Iraq further devolves into full-scale civil war. However, that is only because the Bush Administration so badly bungled the Iraq situation by getting us involved in an ill-preapred way in the first place. The greatest threat to our national security, in my opinion, has been the Bush Administration and a politically motivated, rubber-stamp Republican Congress. If Democrats are considered as weak on national security by not being in favor of escalating a stupid war, the Republicans should be considered as a dangerous and serious threat to our national security through its strident ideolgy and bungling ways. Which is worse?
that the Iraq war is depeleting our readiness and resources... but that Democrats haven't used that as a talking point often enough.
"A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, repeated the much-parroted myth that Democrats are weak or are perceived as weak on national security"
Sorry, but it's not a myth. It's the absolute truth. MMFA didn't even come out with their usual statistics to try to back up their claim either. Democrats oppose just about every anti-terror measure that we have come up with in the past five years. They opposed the NSA Surveillance program, they want to weaken the Patriot Act, they want foreign terrorists to have the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens, they want to end the interrogation program, and they oppose military tribunals. How can you possibly say that the Democrats aren't weak on national security? The issue of Iraq is a debatable one, but it's the Democrats' stance on domestic national security issues that concerns me. They seem to take the side of the terrorists in almost every instance, rather than worry about our own national security.
To be fair, you, nor Ms. Stoddard, can make a blanket statement saying "Democrats". That implies all Democrats and that is not true. The far left factions that are very vocal within that party are not indicitive of the majority, or where the people stand. That is why I say give them a chance to disprove this "myth".
There are centrist Democrats and Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the whole torture mess recently, or the mess made by Bush in Iraq - you can't not include these as potential threats to our security either.
That is why I said sensible Democrats, not the way left fringe of that party.
"To be fair, you, nor Ms. Stoddard, can make a blanket statement saying "Democrats". That implies all Democrats and that is not true"
Sorry. You're probably right on that. I should've said committed liberals rather than Democrats. There are a few Democrats like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman who are strong on national security. However, I would still say that about 3/4 of the Democrats in Congress are weak on national security. You probably think the number is lower. I don't know. As for your statement about torture, you should probably be careful before making allegations like that. There is absolutely no proof that we torture anyone. Torture consists of cutting off limbs, breaking arms and legs, electric shock, etc. If you can provide examples of this happening, then maybe I'll believe your claim. Until then, I'll just stick with the facts.
how about murder? cover-up? check out this article... [link to abcnews.go.com]
But you know, I'm going to go back to looking for evidence of torture...
That committed warmongers like YOU are STUPID on National Security and frankly dont care BEANS about it. Only slaughter and getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. While stripping away as many rights as you can and telling lies as often as possible. We HAVE tortured people its ludicrous to claim otherwise. YOU dont get to define torture as whatever we havent done. Sodomizing people with chemical lights as the Taguba report shows ISNT torture? Electrical shocks to genitals as both the photo showed and Taguba report claimed ISNT torture beating people to DEATH isnt torture?
[link to www.cnn.com]
Afghan detainees' deaths ruled homicides
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Military coroners have determined that the deaths of two detainees while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan were homicides, CNN has confirmed.
A criminal investigation into the December deaths of the two men is in its final stages, but a U.S. military source said it is not clear whether anyone will be charged.
One senior military official said, "This investigation may not go well for us."
Autopsies found that "blunt force trauma" was a contributing factor in both cases, military sources said.
I suggest you STOP LYING
The laws you are listing are mainly an infringement on civil liberties. Ben Franklin said: "Any nation which will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." Aside from that, these laws don't do too much to stop terrorism. I haven't seen any evidence of their working. How about fighting hate? And if I recall correctly, there was a poll saying that Dems are more trusted on security. Again, what has the PATRIOT act done for Americans, and what has it taken from them?
"The laws you are listing are mainly an infringement on civil liberties"
Your civil liberties won't do you much good if you're dead. I don't know about you, but I would rather give up a few of my civil liberties then be dead. However, I don't believe that I've really lost any of my civil liberties from these anti-terror programs. The only people who lose their civil liberties are terrorists. My life hasn't been affected at all from these programs. And yes, the Patriot Act is a crucial part of the War on Terror. It has taken down the wall between law enforcement and the intelligence community. It has helped us break up terror cells in many states.
give me liberty or give me death.
are infinitely more likely to be killed in car crash than killed by a terrorist. Should we bomb Detroit?
Thank all that is good that candy a$$ authorit_arians who would cede their liberty for security did not frame our Constitution.
--It [the patriot act] has taken down the wall between law enforcement and the intelligence community. It has helped us break up terror cells in many states.
Proof please, I've been waiting for this for a long long time.
How about naming some of those statets where these supposed terror cells have been taken down. I'm waiting...
This isn't exactly a neutral site, but here you go.
[link to www.proconservative.net]
I'm with a few other people on this one. I don't want to give up ANY of my civil liberties, and you shouldn't either. I'd rather die than not be free. Obviously, you don't feel that way. You might as well go live in a police state somewhere.
That's about as selfish as you can possibly get. You would rather have the U.S. hit by a major terrorist attack then go through a little inconvenience. That's absolutely unbelievable. However, I think you'd change your mind if you were taken captive by one of these terrorists and threatened and tortured repeatedly. Also, how exactly have Bush's policies infringed on your "individual liberties?" Can you give me one example?
Reading comprehension is not your particular cup o' tea.
Haven't we been told time and again how we can't let the terrorists win? Well, here is something for you. If we change the way we live, and the way we enforce laws in this country, and restrict the civil liberties given to us when this country was founded, they have already won. Get a clue my friend. This isn't about just me. I don't want any of my freedoms taken away on the mere miniscule chance that I might get killed in a terrorist attack. Again, terrorist attacks in the US are a red herring for the most part. More people die every year in the US by overdosing on Tylenol than died in 9/11. Do I think the horrific nature of that attack is miniscule? Of course they were, but your chances, and my chances of getting killed by a terrorist statistically don't really exist.
If I were taken captive by a terrorist (an even less remote chance than getting killed by one by the way), I still wouldn't change my mind. Torture me for what? What information do I have that they want? I'm sure that maybe they would, but guess what? My freedom is more important than just me, and so is yours, even though you want to toss it away on the mere perception that you'll be safer.
You want examples of how my civil liberties have been affected. I'll give you 2 that everyone in this country can cite. Wiretapping without warrants on American citizens, and opening of my mail without a warrant. Has either of these happened to me? I don't know for sure, but the mechanisms are now in place for them to happen, and that my friend is impingement on my civil rights, and your civil rights.
If we don't adhere to the laws of our own country, and what makes this country great, and we trod upon the Constitution, we will cease to exist as a country, and will in turn devolve into a police state. Once one set of rights are taken away, what is to stop the goverment from taking away ALL of them? Sheep such as yourself believe you are safer because the Constitution is ignore, you're not, we're not. We have let the spectre of terrorism change our country, and that is what they have longed for all along.
"I'll give you 2 that everyone in this country can cite. Wiretapping without warrants on American citizens, and opening of my mail without a warrant."
So have you been calling overseas to places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia to muslim men with a history of terrorism? Because that's the only way the government will listen to your phone conversation. They only listen to people in the U.S. who call suspicious people overseas(Mainly the middle east) They have no interest in your private conversations with your husband/wife, friends, family, etc. It's only used to track terrorists' conversations. And also, there is oversight on the program. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been briefed on the program since it has began. So I'm not exactly sure what you have to hide.
Though we have refuted it over and over again. YOU do NOT know who has and hasnt been wiretapped. Without warrants there is no oversight to KNOW who is and isnt being wiretapped. IF the only people being wiretapped are those calling al Queda or KNOWN terrorists like you keep saying despite repeated refutations, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM GETTING A WARRANT? The only thing that makes sense is it ISNT limited to only those cases or there would be no reason NOT to go to FISA and get warrants.
Selfish? Because I want to preserve the freedoms afforded to me from living in the US? Selfish because I want to adhere to the Constitution? Some would call that Patriotic. I said nothing about another terrorist attack. I don't want that, nobody does. But if one were to happen, and I was killed in it, at least I still have my freedom. I'll take it.
As someone else said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." You remember, those founding fathers of this country. They'll rolling in their graves because of people like you I'm afraid.
"I said nothing about another terrorist attack. I don't want that, nobody does"
You may not want it, but we'll get it if the Democrats in Congress have their way and do away with the tough anti-terror policies that we have enacted. There's a reason why we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9-11. It's not an accident. It's due to the tough anti-terror policies that we have enacted. I don't know about you, but I would rather suffer a little delay at an airport or have some other inconvenience than die in a terrorist attack. Apparently you disagree. Apparently you would rather be dead than suffer a few slight inconveniences. I don't think there are many in this country who agree with you.
And there is a reason I havent been attacked by a Polar Bear here in Arizona, its my anti Polar Bear Charm. I am willing to part with it for a reasonable sum. You cannot show your baseless assertion has any validity whatsoever. As usual your posts when not outright lies are 90% baseless assertion and 10% pure delusion
YOU want to take away MY civil liberties because YOU are afraid and want to hide under the bed. PROVE that either I give up my civil liberties or someone will kill me.
And leave my civil liberties alone. You cant show that it is a choice between one and the other, its a false dichotomy but if it is I want to die free, not live on my knees. YOU are exactly the type Benjamin Franklin was talking about that deserves neither saftey NOR liberty. WWWAHHHHH please take away my bill of rights, the scary people will kill me if I demand to be secure in my home WWWAAAAHHHH, I am going to go hide under my bed now from the scary guys.
Look we could have been killed MUCH easier and more totally during the cold war Nuclear Missile era and we didnt give up our bill of rights then though I am sure there were those whining that we should, we didnt listen then we shouldnt now.
Just how many strawmen can you pack into a post? I think that this one holds the record.
"They opposed the NSA Surveillance program..." Actually nobody opposed it as you state. They oppose having warrantless wiretapping on US citizens who reside in the United States and whose calls originate from the United States. This is called the 4th amendment to that pesky little document called The Constitution, you know, the one that we make all of our laws from. They didn't say stop doing it, they said if you wiretap a US citizen, get a warrant. There is a FISA court set up especially for such occassions.
"they want to weaken the Patriot Act..." No, they don't. They want the provisions in the Patriot Act that impinge on people's privacy removed. And aside from that, the Act was a shoddy piece of legislation quickly shuffled through Congress immediately after 9/11, and it needs bad revising to truly be effective at doing anything.
"they want foreign terrorists to have the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens..." This is false as well, but they do want them to have access to lawyers, and to have a fair hearing and trial. Do you think they deserve anything less? I'm sure that you do, but if we are to uphold law and order in our own land, we need to hold ourselves to the same standards as we are holding others to around the world. I'm not saying an open trial, but at least let them argue against the evidence against them in a trial, and have access to defense.
"they want to end the interrogation program.." Wrong again, they don't want to end it, they (including a lot of republicans) don't want prisoners tortured, as it has been proven in study after study that torture does not provide good intelligence.
"and they oppose military tribunals." Well, so does the Supreme Court of the United States. Tribunals are not fair trials. They don't get to see the evidence against them, and they don't have access to lawyers to defend them. Everyone deserves a defense, even if they're not from here, but if they are held within our system, then they should be allowed the same provisions of law as our citizens.
"They seem to take the side of the terrorists in almost every instance, rather than worry about our own national security." And here we have the capper, the biggest piece of crap statement in your whole statement. Democrats don't take the side of terrorists, ever. Never have. You show me one actual factual statement from a democratic politician saying that they support terrorists, I'll eat my words, but guess what? You can't do it. Because this is just rhetoric from radio talk show hosts such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et all, and it is blatantly false. Dupes such as yourself fall for these lines time and again without actually looking at the facts.
Let me just say 3 words about republicans and how "tough" they are on terrorists.
Osama Bin Laden
Where is he? Why haven't we gotten him yet? Oh yeah, it's because Bush forgot about the mastermind of the 9/11 bombings almost altogether, and let Iraq get in the way of actually finding and killing terrorists.
How about how Bush didn't want a 9/11 commission? He didn't implement all of their plans, democrats had to do that.
I could go on, but I know it's wasted on you.
"This is false as well, but they do want them to have access to lawyers, and to have a fair hearing and trial. Do you think they deserve anything less"
Yes. I don't really think they "deserve" much of anything, except maybe an electric chair. These are people who kill innocent women and children. I just don't see how you can possibly have any sympathy for these people. They aren't entitled to lawyers, because they aren't entitled to the same legal protections as U.S. citizens. They aren't afforded any of the rights that American citizens have, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T U.S CITIZENS. They aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention protections either. They don't wear a uniform and fight for a country, and they haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention.
are terrorist suspects, not necessarily terrorists. Big difference. Suspects deserve fair trials.
Most of your posts look like they were cut and pasted from Rush Limbaugh's website. Same old tired-ass right-wing talking points.
BTW, the Geneva Conventions state that if the STATUS of a detainee is UNKNOWN, then that detainee is to be afforded all the protections of the Conventions. All those prisoners that have been swept up and held for months and years without representation, access to communication with their families, or even the benefit of knowing the charges against them ARE ENTITLED to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Under the detainee bill recently passed by the cowardly Republican congress, the preznit has the final say on whether ANY person (including yourself) is entitled to a tribunal. Under the law, YOU (presumably an American citizen) could be picked up off the street for whatever reason by Homeland Security, whisked off to Gitmo, held incommudicado for an indefinite amount of time without being charged and YOU would have NO RECOURSE. YOU could not even speak to an attorney or call your family until your status has been determined by a hearing. The catch is, the preznit can postpone that hearing indefinitely by simply declaring YOU an enemy combatant (even American citizens).
Now this stupid-ass law is certain to be ruled unconstitutional even by the right-wing toadies on the current court (except maybe Scalia, and that dim-bulb Clarence Thomas), but until then, YOUR rights have stripped from you, and this law doesn't expire when bush (lowercase intentional) leaves office in shameful retreat. Imagine Hillary Clinton with THAT kind of power. Still feel like your security is more important that your freedom?
"Under the detainee bill recently passed by the cowardly Republican congress, the preznit has the final say on whether ANY person (including yourself) is entitled to a tribunal. Under the law, YOU (presumably an American citizen) could be picked up off the street for whatever reason by Homeland Security, whisked off to Gitmo, held incommudicado for an indefinite amount of time without being charged and YOU would have NO RECOURSE"
That's completely ridiculous. The Supreme Court ruled several years ago that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are entitled to U.S. Constitutional protections. They are entitled to lawyers, contact with family, etc. It is only NON-US CITIZENS who are not afforded the protections of our Constitution. At least try to get your facts straight before you post.
The Supreme Court ruled several years ago that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are entitled to U.S. Constitutional protections.
Are you perhaps referring to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?
It is only NON-US CITIZENS who are not afforded the protections of our Constitution.
Wrong. See Rasul v. Bush.
"Are you perhaps referring to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?"
Exactly. From Wikipedia: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant". The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.
"Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review."
Scalia was also the most liberal on this issue, along with Stevens:
"Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, went the farthest in restricting the Executive power of detention. Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus (a power provided for under the Constitution only in times of "invasion" or "rebellion"), which hadn't happened; or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi's detention—it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention."
Stating that citizens must be afforded due process rights is not the same as saying only citizens must be afforded those rights. In fact, non-citizens must also be afforded due process. I refer you again to Rasul.
Held THREE YEARS witout trial or access to a lawyer HE is a US citizen. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
Killers? No you pulled that out of your rectal database to prop up an argument with NO MERIT whatsoever. Along with your compelte misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention, Uniforms are NOT necessary for Geneva convention protection under its provisions. There are exceptions, and the GC says directly that NO DETAINEE may be put beyond the reach of the law. They are not killers until that is SHOWN, they arent killers just because you SAID they are. Also, IF they are to be PUNISHED under the egis of US law they are entitled to the protection of US law thats what the Constitution says, If you had ONCE bothered to read it you would see that the Bill of rights is afforded to PERSONS not CITIZENS. You have latched on to a talking point without the slightest validity, and wont let it go no matter how often it is shown to be ludicrous on the face of it.
And then you go on and recite Constitutionally qustionable programs...
It is our Constitution that makes this the greatest country on the planet. Would you have us abandon Constitutional principles in the name of national security when it is not necessary to abrogate the Constitution to effectuate anti-terrorism program? When we abandon the Constitution we cease being the country that others look to as the standard for civilized nations. We might as well become terrorists ourselves.
We're not arguing about who is more patriotic or caring about our country. We're arguing about methods and I would suggest that the heavy-handed approach, as exemplified in the unnecessary and ill-advised invasion of Iraq, is not the long-term solution.
Where did the 9/11 highjackers come from? Answer: A majority came from Saudi Arabia
Who bombed Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? Answer: Junior
Do you feel safe with a man that cannot use a map to find the right target?
Answer: HELL NO!!!
The last time you tried this we took you apart, now you just come back and repeat the same stale rightwing lies. The Patriot act reauthorization met with BIPARTISAN opposition. NOT to weaken it as your LIE states. The act originally had sunset clauses on many of the provisions the fight was to allow those to go into effect, to COMPLY with the Patriot act as written not to weaken it. The act itself met with almost NO opposition the reauthorization was met with specific arguments against specific civil liberties weakening provisions SLATED TO EXPIRE.
No one but BUSH has said anything about ending interrogations when he threw a hissy fit saying either he would get his way or he would stop interrogating prisoners. Dems just wanted the LAW enforced, you do KNOW there is a law called the Convention AGAINST Torture act right? Another lie you keep repeating PEOPLE have rights in this country not only citizens. Only a very few rights are restricted to citizens.You think your emotional but fact free description as everyone we have ever detained as a terrorists means anything other than that you are interested ONLY in propaganda. It doesnt. Not all those we have detained are terrorists only the truly demented believe they are. Only those committed only to propaganda repeat the nonsense. Your arguments are lies and weak propaganda without a shred of fact, insight or logic. Basically worthless. YOU HAVE NO POINT
. . . just like it was the media's fault that soldiers were dying in Iraq . . .
Democrats don't even need to prove themselves on national security. REPUBLICANS HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THAT NO ONE CAN DO ANY WORSE THAN THEM. Terrorism is a hoax, terrorism is only another word for good old revenge. America's imperialistic style since WWII is finally reaping what they've sown. That's not terrorism, that's friggin' justice.