NY Times failed to connect Democratic "not new" security proposals to past GOP obstruction
SUMMARY: A New York Times article about congressional Democrats' newly released national security agenda reported that "[m]ost of the proposals are not new," and included a response from Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, who was quoted as saying: "It's taken them all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time." The article made no mention that congressional Republicans -- including Bond -- have blocked the Democrats' "not new" security proposals for years.
In a March 29 New York Times article on congressional Democrats' unveiling of "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," a series of policy papers on homeland security, Times reporter Steven R. Weisman reported that "[m]ost of the proposals are not new," and included a response from Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO), who was quoted as saying: "It's taken them all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time." Weisman also reported that Bond "said that while Democrats sought to showcase their support of national security, they had tried to block renewal of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and the [Bush] administration's program of wiretapping without warrants." Weisman, however, failed to note that congressional Republicans -- including Bond -- have blocked the Democrats' "not new" security proposals for years.
According to the Democratic policy papers:
To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack.
Weisman wrote in his March 29 article:
Democrats also want to give greater powers to the office of the national intelligence director and to investigate accusations of abuse and torture of detainees. They say they want increased financing for screening containers at ports and securing nuclear and chemical plants and training emergency health workers.
Most of the proposals are not new. Many echo arguments put forward by Democrats and by their 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, including a demand for more military equipment and body armor for troops and improved veterans' benefits.
[...]
But Republicans, anticipating the Democratic attack, were already circulating their own counteroffensive on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, said he had just obtained a copy of the Democrats' plan and added, "It's taken them all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time."
Mr. Bond said that while Democrats sought to showcase their support of national security, they had tried to block renewal of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and the administration's program of wiretapping without warrants.
However, Bond and his fellow Senate Republicans have blocked or voted against numerous Democratic attempts to implement these security proposals. Weisman did not mention this, despite the fact that it undermines Bond's criticism that the Democrats have just now "figure[d] out" what the GOP has "been doing for a long time."
-
March 17, 2005: Bond and 36 other Senate Republicans voted against an amendment proposed by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) to the 2006 budget bill to restore $565 million in cuts to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first-responder programs, provide $150 million in port security grants, and provide $140 million for hiring 1,000 more border patrol agents.
-
Congressional Quarterly reported on September 14, 2004: "During a week and a day of debate, Democrats were turned away on more than a dozen amendments that would have added $20 billion to" the 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill. CQ specifically noted: "An amendment by Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to add $350 million for rail security was struck down on a point of order, 43-51." The vote can be viewed here.
-
September 8, 2004: Forty-five Senate Republicans, including Bond, voted to remove an amendment proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to the 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill adding an additional $150 million for port security research and development grants.
-
July 24, 2003: Fifty of 51 Senate Republicans voted* (along with former Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA)) to defeat an amendment to the 2004 Homeland Security bill, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that "would have allocated $292 million to local fire departments and to efforts to improve security measures at chemical plants and ports." [National Journal, 7/25/04]
-
A November 14, 2002 Newsday article on the congressional approval to create DHS reported: "On port security, Senate Democrats had tried to add a charge on imports to raise approximately $600 million a year for added security, but they were blocked by House Republicans and the maritime industry."
*Correction: The original text of this item incorrectly stated that "Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously (along with former Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA)) to defeat an amendment to the 2004 Homeland Security bill, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that 'would have allocated $292 million to local fire departments and to efforts to improve security measures at chemical plants and ports.' " In fact, while 50 of the 51 Republicans in the Senate at the time voted against the amendment, Olympia Snowe of Maine voted for it.
We all know that the Democrats have no ideas what-so-ever...
Right. For all you neocons out there... how about looking into some of those non-ideas and getting back to us.
The wicked irony is that it is the GOP who has floundered. What's different? What's better? Are we more secure? NO.
Are we "more secure"? That is a subjective question difficult to quantify. Our security has increased in certain areas, namely airports, but overall due to the nature of our society being "free" we will never be totally secure.
Without secure borders, which we certainly don't have, I would agree with your overall point that we are not "more secure".
I'm not even sure we're more secure at the airports. Although, there are many "dept of homeland security" signs and longer lines... But, I have little faith in the policies and direction of this administration.
If we were less afraid, we'd be less ready to hate everyone who isn't like us.
If we didn't hate everyone who isn't like us, we wouldn't vote Republican.
So no, we're not more secure.
It is incumbent on Democrats to get their ideas out and make Republicans respond to their proposals. This is especially true when Democrat proposals about Homeland Security are defeated. Every one of the defeats listed in this article should become a soundbite mantra to be repeated at every opportunity by every Democrat running for the House or Senate this election year.
And, force the GOP candidates to respond to the Dem proposals... let's see what ideas the neocons have? Do THEY have any good ideas? I'm not hearing many...if any. That is, if you discount selling our ports to Dubai or China. Oh yeah, and building a wall along the Mexican border. Oh yeah, and creating a bloated bureaucracy called the Dept of Homeland Security (sounds zippy). Oh yeah, and invading Iraq...
None of the actions or proposals taken by this administration are logical or cost-effective. But, then again... the Dems have no ideas. How about the MSM analyzing the Dem proposals and see if the proposals are any good?
That "Bloated Beuracracy" called the D of HS that you mentioned was used as an example five times by MMFA in the above article of funding the Democrats wanted to increase that the Republicans wouldn't pass. Sounds like the Dems are on board in support of this department, in fact want to spend MORE than Republicans.
beyond the benefits of the porkbarrel and diverting a river of cash to one's corporate contributors.
This entity was created by the GOP and is poorly run. The Dems are trying to work with what's there, I think. Blame your GOP instead of looking for reasons why the Dems might be wrong. The proof is in the events of the last 6 years -- of exclusive republican control.
I don't think the Dems are wrong on this issue. I favor increased spending for that department providing the country is getting value for it. I thought the creation of that department was necessary to streamline the information that apparently wasn't being shared between enforcement branches. The Dems should be highlighting the fact that Republicans blocked this funding from now through the 06 elections. Put the Republicans on defense for once. This is a no-brainer tactic that would be effective.
If the Dems can't take all these blunders and turn it into electoral victories, then they deserve to win nothing.
If you happen to be in a swing state, vote your conscience and vote for a Democrat.
I live in a Blue state, but if the polls are anywhere near accurate and the Dems are anywhere near competent, you shouldn't need my vote to win.
The way I see it, we (yes, the collective USA 'we') need to attain balance in this country -- by getting rid of this GOP dominance. Are the Democrats angels? Perfect? No way. But, if we continue on this path of neocon madness... we're all screwed. That's the way I see it.
I don't see the GOP as the Evil Empire that some around here do, but I will acknowledge that they have made enough mistakes to warrant losing control of the government at this time. I think what happened (IMO) is that the GOP had been in the minority for so long, 40 years in the house or whatever, that when they finally got total control of congress and the White House they lost control of their brains. A divided government seems to work better for checks and balances.
It ain't perfect...but it works the best that way.
How many times do the Decoycrats have to knife you in the back before you'll figure it out??
The Decoycrats are just a second PR firm trying to land the corporate account. The two parties are just the right and left pockets of the same pair of pants.
Folks, the owners of both parties are the same people. IF YOU DON'T VOTE THIRD PARTY, THEN NOTHING CHANGES.
I am hoping they can do just that. Look I'm a member of the choir so I've always thought the Dem's ideas were better. Clinton’s policies were effective. (By the way the Clinton administration tried to advise the Bushies of the terrorist danger and it was completely ignored. Former Sen. Hart gave another example of a blown off warning on the Colbert report the other night.) Sorry but I digress now back to the topic. One of the problems for Democrats has been in message delivery. First of all serious solutions to problems can't be accurately and HONESTLY communicated in sound bites and in GOP type perfected banalities, combine that with the bland face on the leadership and it makes it very difficult. Harry Reid is let's say less than inspiring but I would rather have substance than charm in a leader; but it’s great when you have both, I think I’m seeing that in Mark Warner. Nevertheless, I hope that the voters have learned from the fiasco of the last 6 years and they've become smart enough to look beyond the face of the messengers and examine the message thoroughly. I think that’s definitely going to happen with the congressional elections and I’m keeping my fingers crossed for 2008.
Your digression is applicable to Hogprint's threat of 'the record' below.
.. about that part where you mentioned what y'all "been doing for a long time": we know.
Believe me, we know.
Along with your Attila the Hun foreign policy, disastrous disaster preparedness, a blind eye toward Congressional corruption and a spend-and-borrow agenda, you’ve found the time to continue distorting and lying about issue after issue.
Thanks for providing good examples, like the part where you said "they had tried to block renewal of ... the USA Patriot Act and ... wiretapping without warrants."
Don't worry Kit, thanks to folks like MMFA, the American people are learning more and more about what the Duhhbya Dynasty has "been doing for a long time", and hopefully, you'll see what we think about it this Fall.
--NYT: "[m]ost of the [Democrat] proposals are not new"--
A renewed determination to eliminate Osama bin Laden is, in fact, quite new, considering that our dear, supposedly security-conscious leader has said "I really don't think about [bin Laden] that much."
has Bush failed to capture Bin Laden, and why did the Neocons squash any investigation into the Business dealings with Bin Laden? Money Rules!
"To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack." ______________________________________________
Wow, you're just now getting it. It took a surprise attack with over 3000 dead and a 9/11 commission to get you people to realize what's at stake here.
I'll show you YEARS where the Dem party didn't get it. How long was Clinton in power? Twelve years he could have been taking action, but instead he was chasing porcine interns through the rose garden.
Believe me when I say the American people understand which party is going to protect them and which party is, well, just there for the party.
Yes, he tried to get Osama... but, he was being impeached and chastised by the Republicans "No War for Monica!" Remember that?
Keep babbling Hogprint. Keep calling upon Clinton. Take a look at the record -- the record you're threatening to "show us".
Clinton had the chance to nab OBL and punted. Many have posted it here before and yet you keep ignoring it. As for other examples of Democrats standing in the way of America protecting herself, well, here is one to start....
"REACH OUT AND TOUCH A COMMIE? (House of Representatives - September 24, 1991)
[Page: H6727] (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, former Central Intelligence Agency officer Alan Fiers recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was asked if there was any truth to a newspaper report about conversations between certain Members of Congress and staff aides of the House and the Communist Government of Nicaragua in the 1980's.
Mr. Fiers reported that there was truth to those reports.
Mr. Speaker, we must investigate Mr. Fiers' claim. The reputation of this institution is at stake. If, indeed, Members of the House or their staffs were aiding and abetting the brutal Communist dictatorship in Nicaragua, helping it to circumvent administration moves to help Nicaraguan freedom fighters, then we should know about it. The American people should know about it as well.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the telephone adage `Reach out and touch someone.' But I never thought that it meant touching Communist thugs hell-bent on enslaving the people of Central America.
I certainly hope that this was not the case. I would not have believed for one moment that Congressmen would do such things, but we will never know if we cover up the truth.
Mr. Speaker, this matter is a matter that deserves investigation. Let us make public the transcripts, if in fact there are any, of such conversations.
Intelligence Material on Sandinistas Is Said to Have Involved Lawmakers
(BY DAVID JOHNSTON AND MICHAEL WINES) Washington.--During most of the 1980's, as the Reagan Administration monitored the communications of the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua, it intercepted and recorded numerous private discussions involving Congressional opponents of the Nicaraguan rebels in an unanticipated part of the secret intelligence operation, former Administration and intelligence officials said.
The eavesdropping program, which remains a tightly guarded secret, was aimed at the Sandinista Government. It generated detailed information about discussions between Nicaraguan leaders and Congressional officials who opposed President Ronald Reagan's policies in Central America. Most were Democrats or staff members of Democrats. The Administration considered the conversations with the Sandinistas to be damaging breaches of national security, if not treasonous.
Former Reagan Administration officials said the lawmakers included Mr. Barnes, David E. Bonior of Michigan, now the third-ranking Democrat in the House, and Jim Wright of Texas, the former House Speaker. Until he resigned in 1989 over accusations about his financial dealings, Mr. Wright was deeply involved in trying to mediate regional peace negotiations in Central America. In interviews this week, all three men said they had discussions with Sandinista officials. Mr. Barnes was a leading opponent of aiding the contras and then chairman of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Central America. In an interview, he said Mr. Casey told him late in 1985 that the Central Intelligence Agency had obtained communication between the Nicaraguan Embassy and the Foreign Ministry in Managua. The communication outlined a conversation between Victor C. Johnson, the staff director of Mr. Barnes' subcommittee, and representatives of the Sandinista government.
Former Administration officials said they were sometimes stunned by the intelligence reports. These officials said they became seriously concerned that lawmakers or their staff members were advising the Sandinistas to adopt specific diplomatic and military tactics to help the Congressmen defeat Administration proposals to provide the contras with military aid.
These accusations intensified in 1987 and 1988 when lawmakers like Mr. Wright became directly involved in meetings with contra and Sandinista leaders. The conversations centered on how the Sandinistas could enhance their standing in Congress by improving human rights, holding free elections and ending repressive measures against the political opposition.
Afte reviewing the data, one Reagan Administration official said there were discussions about the possibility of revoking the security clearances of several Congressional officials. At one point in late 1987 and early 1988 there were discussions within the National Security Council over whether to prosecute Mr. Wright or his aides under the Logan Act of 1799.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aiding and abetting communists. Voting against weapons procurement. Against missile defense. Yes, you Democrats have a LONG history of opposing America protecting herself. Care to defend the indefensible?
--"Yes, you Democrats have a LONG history of opposing America protecting herself. Care to defend the indefensible?"--
Remind us again of the brave military exploits of the Texas National Guardsman George W. Bush and the five-deferment draft-evader Dick ("I had other priorities") Cheney helped protect and defend America during the Vietnam War.
Dave Chicago posted:
"Remind us again of the brave military exploits of the Texas National Guardsman George W. Bush and the five-deferment draft-evader Dick ("I had other priorities") Cheney helped protect and defend America during the Vietnam War."
_______________________________________________
Dave have you ever worn the uniform for your country? If you have then yes you can throw some slings and arrows. W served in the Texas ANG. You may disagree with how he got in, and how he served, but he did serve. Seriously, after all the stones that have been turned over on this subject, I can't believe y'all still try using this one.
As for Cheney, I served under him as the Honourable Secretary of Defense. One of the finest in my lifetime.
So Dave, I'll ask you. What have you done for your country's service?
--"So Dave, I'll ask you. What have you done for your country's service?"--
What I did or what you did is irrelevant to this discussion and off-topic.
Your false claim is that Democrats don't rise to the occasion when it comes to defense. But the facts are, Bush and Cheney -during wartime- had opportunities to actively participate in the war and to defend their countries. They declined, while others went (and died) in their places. They exhibited no bravery, no initiative, during the Vietnam War. These are leaders with no military credentials, as if it isn't obvious by now.
These guys SUPPORTED the war. They just supported OTHER people risking their lives for it not THEIR pampered butts
Dave Chicago posted:
"They declined, while others went (and died) in their places. They exhibited no bravery, no initiative, during the Vietnam War. These are leaders with no military credentials, as if it isn't obvious by now." _______________________________________________
Bush served. I can link you to his orders. Just Google it. You can make the argument all day long and I wont necessarily argue with you that he exhibited bravery, but there is no real way to measure that unless he earned a medal for bravery now is there? As for the Veep, go down and read my last post. The last time I checked the POTUS and VPOTUS did not have to serve to be considered for the job. At least they didn't go off to a foreign country and run down their country like a certain somebody did.
Bush avoided Vietnam. He is weak on defense. A man with no military credentials. Certainly none adequate enough to be Commander-in-Chief.
Cheney avoided Vietnam. Five deferments. "Other priorities", he said. He, also, is inexperienced, with insufficient military experience. Doesn't know war or the real costs of it. Yet is gung-ho to send others, just as he was in the Vietnam era.
By failing to take his MANDATORY physical, he was derelict in his duty. He FAILED to remain elegible to fulfil his duty. The one that taxpayers paid about a million dollars to train him for. I wouldnt really calling that service. I would call it FAILING to fulifll his service obligations. After everything that has come out about Bush I cant believe you rightwingnuts still defend Bush on this issue. Admit he was a slacker and move on.
Why wasn't he FEB'd. That would be a Flight Evaluation Board. If he was derelict in his duty, then produce the paperwork that shows he lost his wings. If you can produce that Solon, then I'll concede the point. Good luck. ;)
That if you dont know it you must get your news exclusively from Faux news and Rush Limbaugh
[link to talk.ocregister.com]
May 1972: Bush asks for and receives permission to continue his duties in Alabama while he works as political director on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, a friend of his father. He loses flight credentials after missing physical exam. You can get all this from the Boston Globe but you must register. Only people in a cave in Sri Lanka could have missed this one. Hey the sky is blue do you need a link to verify that too?
Taken off of flight STATUS and an FEB are two VERY different things Solon. Once again, I ask you to link the paperwork. Not a sludge site. If you can produce that, I'll come out of my cave! Once again, good luck in your endeavors. You're going to need it.
The Orange County Register is a well established conservative Southern California newspaper. Not a sludge site I picked it specifically BECAUSE I knew you would snivel if I used a liberal site. I also told you that you could find it at the Boston Globe if you registered. This was widely covered if you didnt hear about it the only explanation is you didnt WANT to hear about it. WHAT I SAID was he failed to take his physical and thus his eligibility to fulfil his duty as required. Now you can spin but if he had not been a politically connected son of priveledge he would have found himself in Vietnam so fast he wouldnt have had time to set his watch. What part of MANDATORY are you NOT understanding. He was required to take a mandatory physical, he didnt, he was removed from flight status. That meant he could not fulfil the obligation he took on, the pledge he took to fulfil this duty that the taxpayers paid about a million dollars to train him for. If that is NOT a deriliction of duty then what is?
I know you're having a tough time finding it. You did say this didn't you? "He loses flight credentials after missing physical exam." You then came back with " WHAT I SAID was he failed to take his physical and thus his eligibility to fulfil his duty as required. "
You're wrong on both accounts. His mandatory flight time was fulfilled early. People miss physicals all the time. They will be removed from FLIGHT STATUS until they pass their physical. I'm sure this happens in the Guard ALL the time. Remember they don't have the same kind of duty as active duty.
Solon, why don't you go back over to the baddie Bill O thread and the "big daddy Rush said this" thread. You're getting in over your head in this end of the pool. Oh, and lay off the kool aid.
So, what happened to Jim Wright...or any of the alleged communist sympathizers? Were they prosecuted? The word "treason" is thrown about quite a bit by the neocons.
How about the Iran-contra debacle? Since we're on the topic of the contras and sandinistas... Was that good for Nat'l security? That worked out really well.
Let's move on to Clinton... or, maybe you should read some of the other posts here... It seems they've already laid out all that needs to be said.
Better yet, why don't you tell us how the current neocon regime has really helped us be more secure? Or, do you want to go back to Clinton again?
That the FREELY elected Sandanista government with NO NAVY, NO AIR FORCE, the second poorest country in the hemisphere with 3 million total people was somehow a threat to us?????? I know you rightwingnuts are scared of your shadows but give me a break. We could have sent the Crips over there and they could have taken over the Sandanistas over the weekend and we wouldnt even have to arm them. You guys are like Pavlovs dogs. Comunists. Oh, scary scary, Mommy help me. I am hiding under my bed. It may make sense to YOU that the Sandanistas were a threat to us but for those of us with an actual functioning cerebral cortex the assertion is ludicrous on the face of it. You guys are sooooo easy. Manipulation by the government is just by the numbers they dont even have to go to the trouble to make up lies that actually make sense. They push the buttons and YOU cower on cue. You really need to Rent a clue.
--"It took ... a 9/11 commission to get you people to realize what's at stake here."--
It took awhile to make the incompetent Bush to wake up and realize that a commission was needed. He was against it, before he was for it.
Clinton used an intern in the Oveal Office and it appears to have happened on mutual consent basis.
Second: It is possible that when Clinton would have been president, 9-11 would still have occured due to internal problems at the FBI and CIA. However, how he would have reacted and how the Republican dominated congres would have cooporated with him remains a question that will never be answered.
With pres Bush in charge, national security has not been served by starting a war with Iraq with American soldiers who voluntered after 9-11 to fight Al-Qaida and terrorists, and who were, in my opinion, betrayed to fight a war for Bush and his administration whereas terrorists seem to come at a second plane.
yellow bird posted:
"Clinton used an intern in the Oveal [SIC]Office and it appears to have happened on mutual consent basis. "
____________________________________________
You got me! It was Der Sleikmiester in the Oval Office with a cigar case! I love Clue!
I am so tired of the misinformation by the bushbots. Objectively the scorecard still weighs in Clintons favor for action. The fact he has not been in office in 6 years and is pulled out as a deflective talking point is another sad issue in itself. Now for the facts
CLINTON Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
CLINTON Stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to kill the Pope
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
CLINTON Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
--Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 9/11) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
-Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-Paul Bremer, Bush's appointed leader (Civilian Administrator) of Iraq disagreed slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort"
We need not discuss the 8/6/01 Bush PDB warning of OBL determination to attack within the USA and then have Bush extend his vacation. SHEESH!!!!!!!!
I agree. And as I wrote before
"With pres Bush in charge, national security has not been served by starting a war with Iraq with American soldiers who voluntered after 9-11 to fight Al-Qaida and terrorists, and who were, in my opinion, betrayed to fight a war for Bush and his administration whereas terrorists seem to come at a second plane."
That alone should be anough to further investigate by an independent forum what led up to this war and investigate the Bush administration, including Bush himself.
Excellent post. You got it. Clinton actually worked hard at protecting the country... and he was very successful DESPITE the perpetual nagging and back-biting by a republican congress. We were a fruitful and unafraid nation during the Clinton administration.
But, the GOP likes the fear... they perpetuate it. All this flagwaving and talk of 'security', etc... bunch of garbage. What has the GOP done to really make us a more secure and hopeful nation? I say nothing.
Too bad you PLAGERIZED IT off the MikeHersh.com website. I thought for a minute you actually had something there. For those that want to see o'l Dans handy work, go to MikeHersh.com and type in Apr 16, 2004. You will notice that it says AUTHOR UNKOWN-SERCH ONGOING.
Let me be the first to say that if Clinton did half of this, then more power to him. Since this is from an obscure left wing blog site and of dubious origin, then I'll have to prove these claims from a reputable source.
Nice try though on the counterfeit Dan!
The word is spelled plagiarized.
On a related note, I see that you copied-and-pasted a long AP article elsewhere on this site. The article's footnote specifically and explicitly prohibits duplication.
knew you liked it!!
You need to expand your reading material. This is pretty large so I'll have to use 2 posts for it I'm sure.
<[link to www.mikehersh.com] “Issued January 23, 1995 his Executive Order 12947 "Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process," See: Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 16, <[link to frwebgate.access.gpo.gov] President Clinton expanded that Order "On January 23, 1995 with, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ... I declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 annually, most recently on January 21, 1998."He added, "I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat posed by foreign terrorists [to add] Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin (a.k.a. Usama bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa to the list of terrorists that are subject to the prohibitions contained in the Executive Order." See: "Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets," August 22, 1998 <[link to www.ict.org.il] President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year. Republican Congressional leaders shot down Clinton's proposals, tried to impeach him on trumped up grounds, and dragged their feet when it came to national security. They did this even after the Murrah Building bombing. Clinton's "Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995" would have: Republicans blocked or stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above. First, they stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions. Finally the Republican Congress passed S.735 "A bill to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes." It became Public Law No: 104-132 when President Clinton signed it, despite his and others' concerns that the Republicans watered down the bill too much. As CNN reported: "Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill ... a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions...." See: "Congress passes anti-terrorism bill," CNN April 18, 1996: <[link to www.cnn.com]
Thanks for this great post.
The Executive Order 12947 you linked was dealing with and Prohibiting transactions with terrorists who threaten to disrupt the MIDDLE EAST peace process.
Very different from protecting American interests and keeping America safe.
Steer me in the right direction if I've missed your point.
A cursory view won't do, I know it’s a lot but follow all the links and read them. I know it's hard you’ve been bamboozled, hoodwinked, fooled and fooled again.
Lynn posted:
"A cursory view won't do, I know it’s a lot but follow all the links and read them. I know it's hard you’ve been bamboozled, hoodwinked, fooled and fooled again." ______________________________________________
Lynn I tried again and the last link you posted I kept getting an error message. The middle link was for the middle east peace plan and the first was to a far left wing blog that has been discredited in an earlier post.
I've had a couple of glasses of wine, so I may be bamboozled. Until I see some better evidence then I'll say I may be computer challenged, but hoodwinked and fooled...I doubt. :)
It's too bad the links didn't work for you. And as far as pooh-poohing the far left website. There were multiple links on that site that led to official government databases including the congressional records maintained in the Library of Congress, and official records of news stories that included direct quotes from Republican congressional members. It documents all of Clinton's anti-terrorism proposals and it documented that the Republican congress obstructed and watered them down which resulted in making them very weak and hampering the fight against the terrorism tool. Apparently for no reason except political maneuvering. Furthermore you pooh-poohed some of the proposals as just being Clinton's Middle East peace policy and that it was somehow unrelated to addressing the terrorism issue. I find that very odd. You have to know that terrorism was then and still is a major problem that will have to be resolved/controlled before a lasting peace can be achieved in the Middle East; besides Hog the Iraqi war is Bush's Middle East policy. He was going to force the spread of Democracy in the Middle East while simultaneously killing the terrorist evil-doers remember? I kind of feel like you didn't want to read documentation and the articles. It doesn't compute with the version of history you want to be true and that's sad.
Not pooh-poohing Lynn, It's just when I see references from blog sites on either end of the spectrum I automatically take it with a grain of salt. Thanks for the leads, and since you gave so many I'll try and hit them this weekend. I hope they don't archive this thread and the debate dies as this is a good one.
I will stand by my earlier post (until I see evidence not to) that Clinton's ME peace policy anti-terrorism plan was just that...a MID EAST anti-terror plan. It was to grease the Israeli-Palestine rail, and yes I'm sure your web site in a round about way linked it to American anti-terror. My point is that is not the plans original intent.
I don't know if you read the CBS article I posted in this thread. It is kind of long, but there are some good tidbits in it. Mainly that America was not prepared for the Islamic hatred directed against us in the first Trade center bombing right up to 9/11. We assumed that type of violence was reserved for the mid east.
I will make the assertion that 9/11 would have happened on W's watch, or Gore's watch had the ball bounced in his court. I think it's safe to assume that the surprise attack would have happened in one way or another given the drive that these islamist fascist have shown.
.. but any Middle East Peace policy and the fight against terrorism are inextricably linked. Clinton and the others that attempted to warn the current administration knew that. They knew that the terrorists recruited from the extremists hated Israel and they hated America and blamed America for propping up Israel among other things they blame us for. The Clinton's knew that America was a target because of this. I don't understand why you don't understand that.
".. but any Middle East Peace policy and the fight against terrorism are inextricably linked. Clinton and the others that attempted to warn the current administration knew that. They knew that the terrorists recruited from the extremists hated Israel and they hated America and blamed America for propping up Israel among other things they blame us for. The Clinton's knew that America was a target because of this. I don't understand why you don't understand that." ______________________________________________
The Mid East and terrorism are linked. I'll give you that. I just have not seen the inextricable link between Clinton and anti-terrorism. I will admit this though. After the first WTC bombing and then the home grown version at the Murrah (sp?)building, the Clinton admin was forced to deal with this. I'm just not convinced he put much energy into dealing with it and I doubt a Republican Pres (if it had been Dole elected in 96) would have done anything different. It was not on our collective radar screens at the time.
Richard Clark seems to be the only one screaming the sky is falling. I think your earlier links show that he was ignored by both administrations in varying degrees. I find him suspect in pushing an agenda to sell his book. If it wasn't for that, he would seem more credible to me.
what are you talking about? The Bush administrtation ignored the terrorist plans, blocked independent counsels into America's intelligence gathering, did NOT go after Bin Laden, sent troops into war zones without proper gear, was willing to let the UAE to control our naval ports' security, and so on... GET A GRIP! (hereby referred to as 'GAG'.
Clinton terrorist efforts part two.
<[link to www.washingtonmonthly.com]
“The evidence is pretty clear from multiple sources that the bombing of the USS Cole in late 2000 finally got the Clinton team revved up for serious military action against al-Qaeda but that the Bush team showed little interest in their plans. So little, in fact, that not only didn't they do anything, but they actually did less than nothing. John Ashcroft declined to endorse FBI requests for additional counterterrorism spending and even recommended cuts in the counterterrorism budget submitted on (embarrassingly) September 10, 2001.
Good stuff. Thanks for the links.
How is it possible that the Dems seem to have forgotten this when they discuss these issues? How did the democratic senators vote on these issue? Do you know that?
<[link to www.congress.org]
It will be a little time consuming but you can start here. It's the searchable congressional database.
Did you get to this part? There are a lot of links to documents inside the documents:
>http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html>
"The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities. " The compromise bill also removed Democratic provisions that would have lengthened the statute of limitations on illegally making a bomb, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, argued in favor of the excised measures, noting that law enforcement has five years to track an arsonist down.
"But if you make a bomb they have three years, and you could have hidden that bomb for a year or more in your home somewhere -- and the clock starts ticking from the day you start making that bomb.
Also her are some other very interesting quotes from Republican lawmakers:
In regards to the the above Orin Hatches reply was :But Sen.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the provision was unnecessary. "Anyone who uses a bomb ... or illegal weapon under this act will be persecuted under the criminal code and receive far larger penalties than are under this act," he said.
Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."
"The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." "If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.
CNN July 30, 1996
More evience of how the Republicans have brainedwashed people like HogPrint and Leatherhelmet. Terrorist fighters indeed.
You are my new MMFA hero!
I went to this link and typed in "Clinton and the bombing of the USS Cole"...I got nothing, so I tried "the bombing of the USS Cole" and had two hits. The first paragraph does seem to support your position, but re read the second paragraph...it seems to support mine.....
"BUSH AND TERRORISM....The whole Richard Clarke affair has been illuminating, and I think it's fair for Democrats to beat up on George Bush for being inattentive to the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11. The evidence is pretty clear from multiple sources that the bombing of the USS Cole in late 2000 finally got the Clinton team revved up for serious military action against al-Qaeda but that the Bush team showed little interest in their plans. So little, in fact, that not only didn't they do anything, but they actually did less than nothing. John Ashcroft declined to endorse FBI requests for additional counterterrorism spending and even recommended cuts in the counterterrorism budget submitted on (embarrassingly) September 10, 2001.
Like I said, I think this is fair game. Still, let's be fair: very few people were screaming about global terrorism as a top priority in early 2001. The plain fact is that without a casus belli like 9/11 there just wasn't enough public support to make possible substantial military operations against foreign terrorists. That applies as much to Clinton as it does to Bush." ______________________________________________
See, even left wing sites and I can agree on this!
This was off the washingtonmonthly.com web site that Lynn linked. I could not get the link to work, but manually entered. Keven Drum is the author of the article.
of debate. "When all else fails, you can always blame Clinton"
Isn't the NYT a "liberal rag?" This is one fine kettle of fish they've got themselves into.
I am of a mind to take away their official "Liberal Propagandist" card.
What the Democrats don't get is how to get around the media. It is the basis for their losses and they don't know how to combat it. I don't know if paid advertising is the answer. They would be out of money pretty quickly trying to stay a step ahead of the media, but one thing is clear to me. The media is selecting who they want in office and the public isn't wise to it. Each media network targets it's own audience. So if someone feels that Fox News is geared toward dummies they usually make the mistake of thinking CNN or MSNBC is generally telling the truth. All those networks are doing is gearing their lies to a slightly more intelligent audience. Until the Democrats put dealing with the media as their number one challenge, they will always lose.
But unfortunately, the Corporations own the Media, and thus they have Vast Control over Elections. Our only hope is More Liberal Corporations.
I seem to recall that it was that slacker Clinton whose Justice Department convicted and imprisoned the terrorists who attacked the WTC during his term. Plus, his warning regarding terrorists to the morons who took his place was ignored until after King George's month-long vacation was so rudely interrupted. "No one could have imagined people flying planes into building!" Hogprint, your memory is as faulty as your reasoning.
The first terrorist attack on the trade center - which took place 10 years ago Wednesday, on Feb. 26, 1993.....
Two top law enforcement officials said the nation badly underestimated the terrorist threat to come. And, in interviews with The Associated Press, they said investigators failed to adjust as the terrorists grew more sophisticated.
"It should have been a wake-up call for America," said New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, "We simply didn't see it as an international conspiracy to destroy our society."
The significance of the attack "was not fully understood by the critical mass of the United States until Sept. 11, 2001," said James Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director who is now Gov. George Pataki's senior adviser on terrorism.
The notion of terrorism on U.S. soil was so distant in 1993 that authorities first assumed the explosion was an accident....
Within days, the FBI had identified a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey as the culprits. The men were so desperate for cash that one was caught trying to retrieve a $400 deposit for the rental van destroyed in the blast.
That bomber's arrest "was a sigh of relief," Kelly said. "It gave the sense that we were dealing with an ad hoc group of amateurs."
Authorities vowed to track down the terrorists, punish them and stop future attacks. And for a while, they appeared successful: Agents arrested a suspect who ordered some of the bomb's chemicals; another was captured within weeks in Egypt.
The FBI even infiltrated a second group of men who shared the trade center bombers' radical Islamic views, including a blind Egyptian sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman. He and others were arrested on charges they were plotting to blow up two tunnels and a bridge, the United Nations and the building housing the FBI - all in a single day.
By 1995, many of the men connected with the bombing and the landmarks plot had been caught, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. And Yousef, the mastermind of the bombing, was on the run with a $2 million FBI reward offered for his capture.
Despite its successes at the time, though, law enforcement faced troubles from within.
"During that period of time, we built the Chinese wall between counterterrorism agents and criminal agents higher and higher every year," Kallstrom said. "We did less intelligence sharing, not more."
And the landmarks plot - which called for simultaneous strikes at multiple targets - proved that terrorists were capable of shifting tactics to stay ahead of investigators. As their sophistication grew, so did their financial backing.
Court testimony shows the 1993 trade center conspirators spent only about four months plotting the attack, and drew on a bank account of less than $10,000.
The 1995 capture of Yousef in Pakistan signaled the emergence of a wealthy benefactor: Osama bin Laden. Yousef was found in a guest house for Afghan war veterans financed by bin Laden. He had sought refuge there after failing in a plot in the Philippines to kill 4,000 people by blowing up 12 U.S.-bound airliners.
A computer used by Yousef and interrogations of another terrorist who lived with him in Manila revealed that several Middle Eastern pilots were training at American flight schools. At least one had proposed hijacking a plane to crash into federal buildings.
Authorities came to believe Yousef was among a cadre of Islamic warriors who were being trained in Afghanistan to fight for bin Laden in a holy war against the United States.
But U.S. investigators remained one step behind bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, whether they were orchestrating the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, or the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 sailors.
Kallstrom said investigators were doomed by the flaws in the gathering and sharing of intelligence, and a lack of will to fix the problem. It took Sept. 11 to drive home the lessons of the 1993 bombing, he said.
"We just never as a nation responded the way, in my view, we should have responded," he said. "It's a lot easier to have consensus when you have 3,000 people dead on the streets of New York and the Pentagon."
By Larry Neumeister © MMIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Maybe it is just me but I read tangible distinct differences proposed by democrats than what has thus far failed by the GOP and WH admin.
Simply making OBL the main objective again is breathtaking in and of itself.
Media has become a Eunuch under bully tactics to portray the admin and Iraq in a positive light.
Pound away Dems, Pound away!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. L posted:
'sent troops into war zones without proper gear"
Is that so? It was the same gear that I was sent into combat with during two conflicts. Can I now say Clinton sent me into combat without proper gear? Stick to the facts MR. L., or better yet speak of things you know.
I've heard similar reports... GIs rummaging around for armor and bullet proof glass, families buying their soldiers the proper body armor ... and PAID mercs riding around in posh SUVs ... with top-of-the-line equipment and no care about protocol or the rules of the military. Is this the military you support?
Surely, you've heard the same. If you were sent into battle (as you say) in kind, you got screwed also.
So, you think this administration is doing our country some sort of justice? Your loyalty is certainly impressive. But, just because you happened to serve in the military (as you say) does not give you some sort of leg up on patriotism, honor, or whatever it is you think it does. I'm not belittling your service. But, you have to admit... these guys (Rummie at the helm) don't seem to know what the hell they're doing (by our own general's admissions).
the meeting between Clinton and Bush after the SC gave him the white house. In this meeting, Clinton tells Dubya that his #1 priority should be Osama and Al Quida.
Let's not also forget that Dubya already had plans to attack Iraq before Powell made his "strong" case at the UN. But of course, you dont hear about the memo in mainstream media.
"meeting between Clinton and Bush after the SC gave him the white house. In this meeting, Clinton tells Dubya that his #1 priority should be Osama and Al Quida"
Really, Ol' Bill gave him the scoop huh......Why wasn't OBL HIS #1 priority?
Peet, I'm not denying that soldiers have bought their own body armor, and they're not doing the things you posted. I'm saying it is an illegitimate argument to say Bush sent troops into battle without the proper equipment. Our troops are the finest equipped units in the field. Is there room for improvement? Of course. This happens in every conflict dating back to when the first George led troops in the revolution. Soldiers will adapt and overcome. The IED's are one of those situations. Jury rigging Hummers to fend off the insidious blast from an improvised munition is one example.
Humvees were not designed to protect against this type of blast. They are soft targets. There have been up-armored Hummers around but only commanders had those vehicles. It depended on the units MTOE whether or not they had one (or two).
As for the leg up on patriotism, I've never held myself over another for that. If that's the impression I've left on here, then I apologize. I'm just waiving the BS flag when people get on this board and post obvious mistruths or blatant falsehoods about the armed services and yes the above reference to Cheney. When someone posts that troops were sent into battle without proper gear, then that raises a red flag with me. It shows they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Just adding some balance.
There are thousands of civilians who work for the armed services and government that contribute a wealth of insight and information that helps the troop in the field. Dick Cheney served in that capacity and I'll defend him and them to the end on that point.
That troops are inadequately supplied with armor is an undeniable fact, and pretending that you're not convinced is rubbish.
But you cons are using them as cannon fodder in the first place, so why should you care?
OK Guy, how well were the troops armored during Operation Joint Endeavor? That was under Clinton. I don't remember YOU or your ilk whining about body armor during that little escaped. My unit still had VIETNAM era equipment when we deployed. Whose fault is that? By your standards I can blame it on Clinton. Will you do the same?
You really don't know the first thing about the military or what the average infantryman is issued or requires. Could it be the CUTS that Clinton made during his reign that left our troops with Nam era gear? I'll make that assertion. What is your stand?
Spell check officer, I surrender! Double offence! I copied-and-pasted while drinking! Oh the horror. It's off to the pokey for me......
The above ref. was for DAve Chicago on the previous page.
Stick his nose in his poop and hit him with a rolled up newspaper all you want -- he still won't learn. But it's always fun to see a con nailed again. Good work by the MMFA posters.
"It's a lot easier to have consensus when you have 3,000 people dead on the streets of New York and the Pentagon."
Yeah, well, if you had anywhere near a decent leader in Bu$h, and if you didn't have the backstabbing by Congressional Repugs documented here, and if you didn't have a bunch of cons trying to kill government while robbing the Treasury as much as they could...
then you wouldn't need a general consensus. Government would have worked the way it was supposed to work.
In this case, general consensus is cover for finally forcing Repugs to do something responsible.
Guy Posted:
"But it's always fun to see a con nailed again. Good work by the MMFA posters. "
Nailed? The only one on this thread that debated with any sense was Lynn. Over 80 posts, a third of which are mine and you only have one poster that can defend your point? I see a lot of false unprovable accusations and a collective "we hate Bush" but no real substance in most of these posts. Keep up the good work big Guy.