On Hardball, Cillizza asserted Democrats "need to prove" they can keep Americans "as safe as Republicans can"
On the August 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, discussing an August 1 speech in which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) proposed a comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism, WashingtonPost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza said: "Democrats still know they need to prove to the American public that they can keep them just as safe as Republicans can." However, several recent polls indicate that Democrats don't need to "prove to the American public that they can keep them just as safe as Republicans can." Moreover, as The New York Times reported, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years." The Times also reported that "President Bush's top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged today [July 17, the release of the NIE] that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan had failed."
An August 1 Rasmussen Reports survey showed that "Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties" -- including national security, taxes, abortion, economy, immigration, education, war in Iraq, Social Security, ethics and corruption, and health care. Specifically, Democrats lead Republicans 47 percent to 35 percent on the war in Iraq and 42 percent to 40 percent on national security.
A July 25-26 Rasmussen Reports survey found that, given a choice among the leading 2008 presidential candidates -- including Republicans such as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson (TN), Sen. John McCain (AZ), and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- "28% of American adults said that they would trust New York Senator Hillary Clinton the most on national security issues," leading all candidates. The top Republican was Giuliani, with 20 percent.
A July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll produced more mixed results, with Democrats and Republicans tied on the issue of "dealing with the war on terrorism," Democrats favored over Republicans 38 percent to 23 percent on who would do "a better job" in "dealing with Iraq" and Republicans favored 33 percent to 21 percent on the question of "dealing with homeland security."
A June 25-26 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that a group of registered voters would prefer Democrats to be "in charge" given a hypothetical "all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide"; Democrats were favored by 41 percent of respondents, while Republicans were favored by 38 percent.
As The New York Times reported, the most recent NIE "concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years." As Media Matters has documented, the NIE states that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" during the Bush administration. Specifically, this "regenerat[ion] includes "a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership." From the NIE:
Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
- As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.
We assess that al-Qa'ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
From the August 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MIKE BARNICLE (guest host): First up, Obama the warrior. Just days after Hillary Clinton tried to beat up Barack Obama over his willingness to meet with enemy leaders; Obama delivered a tough-talking speech this morning on fighting terrorists. In his speech, Senator Obama entertained the idea of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan to root out enemies. Take a look at this.
OBAMA [video clip]: It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President [of Pakistan Pervez] Musharraf will not act, we will.
BARNICLE: So, is Senator Obama worried about being turned into a [Eugene] McCarthy or a [Nixon White House counsel] John Dean, Chris Cillizza? You're downtown at the Post. What do you think? What, is he putting his general's uniform on -- let's, you know, go into Pakistan now?
CILLIZZA: Well, I think there are two things going on. Number one, remember, Obama -- even though we now know, in the political world, know a lot about him; average voters are still getting to know him. And he wants to make sure that they don't just see him as a fresh face and hopeful. You know, some of his rivals have said hope isn't a policy. He wants to go beyond it.
Number two, times have changed, but they haven't changed that much. Democrats still know they need to prove to the American public that they can keep them just as safe as Republicans can. I think this is aimed at saying what happened with the war in Iraq is that we fought the wrong war. Democrats are not against going and attacking our enemies, going and getting terrorists. But we need to keep our eye on the ball. So, it's tough and strong, which, remember, that's what Democrats still need to be.
Well, that should be pretty easy to do now...
So if the Dems take the White House in '08, they have the bar set;
Within their first year, they need to have less than 3000 people killed and less than 2 major landmarks destroyed by terrorists.
I see Bush just went running to Musharref to tell him that we won't send forces into Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden.
Yup, taking options off the table. I feel safer already...
Oh sure - it's real easy for you lefties to point at the rare mistake and act so superior.
But you SHOULD feel safer, thanks to Bush. No bridges fell down today, no steam pipes blew holes in any streets, no levvies were breached, no sink holes swallowed up any cars, no water supply lines burst or were contaminated by overflowing sewer lines. And they STILL have almost 8 hours of electricity per day.
If Bush's policies have made Iraq THAT safe, you can only imagine how safe the Homeland must be.
Yup, I'm feeling even safer now!
Even safer, since I know he's running for President!
Wow, tancredo and his truthiness should make every right wingnut feel much safier...
HBL, i rarely agree with anything you say but at least it's usually sensible. Try to get back on track...
Lolo, I bleieve I was exactly on- track and on topic. I'm sorry if that's confusing to you.
This will probably be more of an 8-year looking back judgement than a today judgement.
there's no reason not to look at the record now. the fact is that bush ignored terrorism before 9-11. he told bob woodward of his lack of concern about bin ladin before the attacks: "i was not...there was a significant difference in my attitude after sept. 11. i was not on point, but i knew he was a menace and i knew he was a problem". key phrase: "i was not on point....".
and the department of homeland security that bush tries to claim credit for, was not his idea. the idea for that came from the hart-rudman commission appointed by clinton and gingrich in 1998 to study internal security. they issued their report when bush came into office and he basically ignored the recommendations and announced that a group headed by cheney would give it further study. that group never met before 9-11. bush ignored the warnings of the summer of 2001, when the 9-11 commission said "the system was blinking red". 9-11 report page 256: "threat reports surged in june and july, reaching an even higher peak of urgency".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/01/02_review1.html
and this shows how condi rice, at the time bush's national security adviser, ignored warnings of a major upcoming attack. these same warnings were given to attorney general john ashcroft, who likewise did nothing. 9-11 report page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute".
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/03/rice-urgent-threat/
More importantly, Clinton ignored terrorism for 8 years and failed to kill or capture bin Laden on several occasions. More Bush derangement syndrome.
how's this for derangement? scroll down to "sept 9-10 2001". "donald rumsfeld threatens to urge a veto if the senate proceeds with a plan to divert $600 million from missile defense to counterterrorism. the next day, attorney general ashcroft rejects a proposed increase in financing for the bureau's counterterrorism programs. on the same day he sends a request for budget increases to the white house. it covers 68 programs, but none of them relate to counterterrorism."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/timelineshort.html
Believe your wrong about Clinton's efforts against tertorism LOLO. They gave the shrub team an emphatic briefing on the subject, which was ignored.
No thanks...
If the present situation in the world (largely due to Duhhbya's and his dogmaniacs' policies) is what Cillizza believes is an example of keeping us "just as safe as Republicans", I think I'll pass.
I'm really not for this slogan of the republicans, but I do feel like I would take, at the very least, the Patriot Act and the Taliban war over the 2 World Trade Center, and African Embassy attacks of the 90's.
There were Repubs in Congress then too, but a different president.
The problem is, Cillizza seems to have forgotten 9/11 and Bush's Distraction War. It's more a double standard than, say, a direct slighting of Democrats.
To whom do the Democrats have to prove anything? I think Republans have to prove that they are no longer blind-folded sheep following the marching orders of this Administration. Does this guy, Godzilla, realize that a vote was held last November? No, Mr. Con Man, the D's don't have to prove anything to the American people, only to Bill O'Reilly.
More Republan B.S. Those B.S. days are OVER. Sorry, Mr. Con Man
So what you're essentially saying is, (and I'm paraphrasing here) you're willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for the illusion of safety.
Great.
How safe are the 3600 soldiers that have died under the command of this Republican safety?
Funny thing how being a soldier is a dangerous job that people volunteer for.
And it's the job of the Commander in Chief of those soldiers to see that their lives are not squandered in the middle of a religious, civil war.
Typical chickenhawk, chickensh+t, saying that because the soldiers are volunteers, no one should complain about them being misused.
I'm not saying that Worrieking. Perhaps we disagree that they've been misused? If you mean the battle plans were inept and cost lives we don't disagree. And that's falls squarely on Bush.
By the way. We've both served.
He's means sending them off to fight an unnecessary, irresponsible and foolish war. Bush should be thrown out of office just for that.
Sorry for assuming that you didn't serve. I do remember you mentioning it in the past.
"What, is he putting his general's uniform on -- let's, you know, go into Pakistan now? "
The answer would be, no. It is our sitting president that likes to play fantasy war games and put on military uniforms for his amusement.
I think that all we have to prove is how crappy a job the Republicans have done.
Almost anyone could do better than what they have done.
I can't stop laughing...
The republicans have protected out security how? The Patriot Act...a joke and unconsitutional to boot. Iraq....well as plenty of people have been saying....has made us less safer and has garnered us more enemies. Domestic Surveillance...cuz you never know, grandma could be a terrorist... All this administration has done is make us more fearful of our world....and stripped us of our essential civil liberties in the process...
No, No, No it works like this right here....lets say you have 2 neighbors and one day all 3 of you are out in the front yard, one of your neighbors make a derogatory comment about your other neighbors petunias, then your OTHER neighbor, the really big one, reaches up the butt of the petunia hater and rips out his spleen, throws it on the ground and stomps on it......lesson here is you probably wont diss big guys patunias....get it? Just leave him the hell alone and everything will be fine. Simple observations can reap massive amounts of information.
Of course the big guy will be messed with IN PRISON. Are you really advocating the equivilent of MURDER for a minor insult? Yeah, its like one of the neocons Micheal Ledeen famously said that every 10 years or so the US needs to find some small country and basically throw them up against the wall. The truth is bullys MAY be safe for a while out of fear but eventually the little folk will often get together and beat the snot out of him because he is a jerk. Not to mention the moral repugnance of your silly analogy
Solly...you are forgetting one thing...there is no "world prison" so my "big guy" will never be arrested by the "world police" or tried in a "world court" and his is not a "jerk" he is a giant "ninja warrior" and the little guys know that if they try to "gang up" on him at least 2 or 3 will die in the process.....not worth the chance...best just to leave him alone and there will be peace in the neighbor hood. You see "big guy" just likes to tend his garden, grow beautiful flowers and live in peace. LEAVE HIM ALONE!
I've been looking under the bed and in the closet for all my missing liberties and I can't find them anywhere. Guess you're right.
That's fine for you if you is all you care about.
I guess you can't find your liberties either? maybe we should look together?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452233
The above link is just one example of people harmed by unconstitutional searches. As you know, there are more.
Well if Obama wants to go ahead and invade Pakistan a sovergn nation against the UN we might be safer.
You mean, invade a country that is actively harboring terrorists and has sold nuke technology to various and sundry "evildoers"? Nah, we'd be safer to invade a country with no real ties to terrorism, and no wmd's. It'd be a cakewalk.
I think Gingrich has been reading some of our posts.
i must be dreaming. he says it exactly right. form an energy policy that will stop sending so much money to regimes and groups determined to do us harm.
I think Newt is trying to attract independents by sounding reasonable. He probably figures he can still hoodwink the "base."
Of course Bush ran as a compassionate conservative who hated nation-building.
O......M.......G!
Hannity's gonna be like so p.o.'ed. He is sooo gonna pull down all the Newt posters in his room, and be like all "I always thought he was a total spaz" and stuff. I mean, this is like total devastation. He's going to want his BFF ring back, too. He'll freak.
What the ???? Who are you and what have you done with Newt?
Did Gingrich just get out of rehab or something? You're right, Neon, this is not going to play well with Hannity's sunshiny message of vicyory.Sean may even key Newt's car.
Safe? You're never safe from the USA. The US has one of the most violent histories in the world. We war about once every FIVE years on average. Our history is one war after another...over 200 years of almost perpetual imperial conflict, with no end in sight. Democrats have the longest history of it, dating to right after the Revolution. Republicans only entered the imperalism stage late in the 1850's, but they've kept up to the pace of killing. Both live by war, they've led us into all the other ones. Neither party wants peace for America. They don't want peace for you and I at all.
Right now, we got Cheney pushing hard to blow up Iranians, we got Hillary and Obama talking tough with the concept, while the plans for further conquest on both sides stay basically the same. The War Party. The Death Parties. The Killing People For Profit Parties. In the USA, fascism sings a duet.
Greens and Libertarians are peace parties, freedom parties, conscience parties. On election day, shall we vote War or Peace? Liberty or slavery? Conscience or criminals? Seems the simplest of choices. Any nay-sayer would be just excusing a vote for War.
your comment on the fact that the green party nominee in 2004, david cobb, urged voters in the 40 "safe states" to vote green, but in the 10 swing states to carefully consider their votes so as not to help reelect bush? scroll down to "green candidate speaks".
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=04-P13-00027
Yes, we know you'll be voting War Party again.
nice evasion, but i asked for your comment on what david cobb, the nominee of the greens, said. obviously he sees a difference between the democrats and republicans and felt it important that bush not be reelected. "a vote for john kerry in those [40] states won't help to unelect bush. in the other states, i'm acknowledging that there is a profound responsibility on the citizens, and they should weigh their options and decide how to spend their very precious vote."
While the Green Party gave us Ralph Nader
The Republicans gave us Darth Vader
Though the Green Party line
Is so perfectly fine
Voting Green helped the war calculator.
Mary59, Bravo!!!
What a Hannitywipe Cillizza is. WHO have the Repoodlecans kept safe? Besides Wormtounge Gonzales, that is?
Oh, that's right -- no attacks on American soil since THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL SINCE PEARL HARBOR. Gee, thanks.
Wormtongue
If you liked 9/11, thank a Republican:
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) 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.
And so on.
Excellent rebuttal to all the Repugnant nonsense about "keeping us safe".
You mean taggants--they were added in 1996 under the antiterrorism act--Who was in charge of Congress-whoever thanks--Clinton and Reno thought the guy at Ruby Ridge was a terrorist--they were the ones that put the legal walls up so agencise could not share data--so stay w/ their train of thought-there's a law /rules in place -so now it can't happen
talk about the "wall" is just the same old yada yada designed to draw attention from the fact that bush and his advisers deemphasized the fight against terrorism. bush did nothing, issued no orders and ignored the threat. the fact is that the information about zacarias moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, was developed by the fbi. but the cia was well aware of it. 9-11 report page 275: "on august 23 [2001], director of central intelligence tenet was briefed about the moussaoui case in a briefing titled 'islamic extremist learns to fly'."
Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and said no thanks. Clinton ignored the first WTC bombing, the Cole and the embassy attacks. Clinton helped decimate our intelligence services
completely wrong as usual. at the time of the supposed offer of bin ladin by the sudanese, for which the 9-11 commission [page110] found "no credible evidence that this was so", there was "no indictment outstanding." all the bombers from the first wtc bombing are in jail, arrested during the clinton administration. the cole happened at the very end of the clinton administration. condi rice told the 9-11 commission that she thought it would not be a "good thing" to respond to the cole. clinton did respond to the embassy attacks. and as far as "decimating" the intelligence services, clinton greatly increased the money dedicated to counterterrorism. 9-11 report page 101: "he [clinton] proposed significantly larger budgets for the fbi, with much of the increase designated for counterterrorism."
No indictment outstanding? That's your defense that Clinton didn't grab him? If that makes you feel better stick with it.
How did Clinton respond to WTC1 and the Cole and embassy bombings? The Cole happened at the end of Clinton's term so he gets a pass? But yet you hammer Bush after a few months in office? You sound like a fair minded individual...
you sound like someone with a comprehension problem. you said clinton ignored the first wtc bombing. i pointed out all the bombers are in jail. 9-11 report page 71: "president bill clinton ordered his national security council to coordinate the response. government agencies swung into action to find the culprits." and i realize you're limited in your understanding of the law, but there was no way to legally bring bin ladin here, as the quote from the 9-11 commission recognized. your talking points have all been answered. repeating them doesn't make them any less bogus.
Lolo, I notice that you are on the Clinton, Clinton and all things Clinton.
But I have to ask you who was President on 9/11? Does the Presidency come with a 9 month probation period for Republicans? Does he not assume responsibility for the country's safety from Jan 20, 2001. I notice you assign plenty of blame for Clinton and he wasn't even President on 9/11 but you can't or won't assign responsibility to the person who actually held office, Junior.
By the way Junior had the same opportunity to take out Osama and guess what, he failed as well.
Well said. The Republicans accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" if he took steps against Bin Laden during the 24 hour a day Lewinsky marathon. But Clinton tried anyway.
Bill Clinton had been President of the US for a matter of weeks when the first WTC bombings occured. He didn't spend the next two years blaming George H.W. Bush for the attack and working with the DNC to create talking points designed to use the bombing to win elections, nor did he order the invasion of a country which had nothing to do with the bombing. He put US Intelligence agencies to work tracking down the bombers, and as has been pointed out here already, the bombers are all in jail now. I guess that's "doing nothing."
Meanwhile, six years after 9/11, the mastermind of the plot is still at large, and idiots like Hannity and certain people on this thread continue to blame Clinton for not "arresting" Bin Laden BEFORE he ordered that crime. Never mind that when Clinton bombed camps in the Sudan where Bin Laden was believed to be, Republicans in Congress attacked him for it.
Bin Laden was not "offered up on a silver platter"- thats a Sean Hannity favorite, and it's source is a guy who has been discredited several times and now - surprise, surprise- now works for Fox NewsChannel. That it never happened won't ever stop people from repeating it- but repeating it won't turn it from fiction to fact. And it won't cover up the fact that A) Clinton fought terrorism, B) Bush was President on 9/11 and had ignored terrorism before that, C) Bush has never brought Bin Laden to justice, D) Bush continues to weaken the US in the world by keeping us involved in a Civil War in Iraq instead of fighting terrorism.
Mitt Romney says we should emulate Hezbollah. The right wing is attacking him but I agree with him. I think it will help diminish groups like Hezbollah.
I feel so dirty just having visited that site. Please don't link to it anymore.
With PROPAGANDA like this the Republicans are a shoe-in come November 08!!
Of course most average neanderthal Americans probably have forgotten that Bill Clinton' administration actually CAUGHT, TRIED and JAILED the 1993 WTC bombers and protected the homeland for the next SEVEN years until Dubya DROPPED the BALL on September 11th 2001.
BUT WHO CARES ABOUT DETAILS WHEN Z I O N I S T controlled media outlets broadcast such EXCELLENT PROPAGANDA?!?!?
In the shadows of what may prove to be the precursor to the 'Guns of August' as in 1914 or perhaps 1939, pundits now claim that DEMS must be viewed by the American electorate as equivalent to the REPUBS as to their degree of toughness in the GWOT, another alphabet-soup acronym signifying the Global War on Terror.
Thus, Hillary maintains that all options are on the table including Nukes while dealing with Iran, while Obama claims the right to pre-emptively invade Pakistan border-tribal areas in the quest and search for Al Qaeda kingpins. Such bellicose and inflammatory announcements should not surprise US, since the DEMS are part and parcel to the same mind-set of Party Elites of both corrupt and toxic establishments who see the 21ST Century US role as a benevolent hegemon willing and able to spill its own young sons and daughters' blood as well as countless innocents of countries unlucky enough to be chosen as worthy for US-style Freedom............. Iraq being the first.
After all, wasn't it Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State in a moment of candid demeanor with Colin Powell, WHO stated, " What good is there in having a great military IF you can't use it ?? This after when questioned by 60 Minutes by Leslie Stahl that US sanctions from 1992 onward were reported to have caused some 500,000 Iraq children to perish and was it WORTH it.......To which Albright replied, Yes, I think it was worth it.
The GWOT is the latest fabrication for maintaining the conduit to grease the skids of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex to the tune of some 460 Billion/year. Arab extremists, quite few in actual number are presented as a monolithic and imminent threat when in actuality, they are composed of a fractious and dubious band of miscreants hardlly in a position to challenge the power of the United States.
What a consummate ruse!! It is probably the greatest looting scam ever to appear on the pages of history. Before it is all over, DEMS and REPUBS won't matter for THEY are two sides of same coin. There will only be AMERICANS with an understanding of their roots, their Constitution and willingness to take the country back from these charlatans WHOSE only interest is POWER.
As for me. Ron Paul sees it clearly. The labels do not mean anything anymore. The only DEM who clearly sees it also.....Dennis Kucinich. ALL THE REST are marching to the tune of EMPIRE to the detriment of our national sovereignty, our posterity and the sacred TRUST handed to US by some very enlightened gentlemen some 230+ years ago.
Rightt... the Republicans kept america so safe that they neglected the infrastcuture to the point that major bridge in a major city was allowed to decay to the point that it collapsed in broad daylight.
The Republicans got america involved in a pointless, unwinable quagmire of an illegal war based on lies, deceptions and falsehoods.... and now they have the unmitigated gaul to say that the Democrats need to prove they can "Keep america safe?" I think that's an insult to the intelligence of all americans.
The sooner we impeach Dubya and The Dick for going to war without a declaration of war by congress (which technically qualifies under the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause of the articles of impeachment) the sooner we can lock them up. I don't know about you but I'd feel a lot safer if those two were behind bars.
You mean, as safe as the Republicans kept us on 9/11? When 3,000 Americans died, while they were in charge? It won't take much for the Dems to keep us as safe as the GOP did on 9/11!!!
Considering that we suffered the worst terrorist attack ever during the republicans watch, I think it's repubs that need to prove that they can keep us safe. BTW, the last real threat we faced,( the germans and japanese,in WW2) was fought and won by democrats, despite the fact that the conservatives at the time didn't want to get involved.