Democrats are better at national security
In his column of November 27, Z. Dwight Billingsly’s assertion that Republican administrations are better than Democratic ones at providing national security is not born out by the facts. There were no attacks by foreign terrorists on the continental United States during 8 years of the Clinton administration. In early 2001, that administration gave the incoming Republicans repeated warnings about the dangers posed by Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda. The Republicans underestimated that risk and failed to protect us against the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently they initiated a major war against Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 9/11and which had no serious plan to attack us. Distracted by the challenges of having invaded the wrong country at the wrong time, they let bin Laden and his top aides escape from Afghanistan. If America suffers a major al-Quaeda attack during the new Democratic administration, it will be because the Republicans failed to keep their eyes on the target, and let bin Laden and his America-hating cohorts continue to roam free.
Gail Ahumada
St. Louis
Gail
Not born out of fact huh? Neither are yours. Fact: Clinton did too have an attack by Al Qaeda, of course they were not called that at the time. February of 1993 the WTC towers were bombed. Wait Gail there is more. Clinton had an opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden and chose to ignore it. Oh yes there is more. Clinton trimmed down the CIA and prevented them from doing the needed searching and intelligence gathering they needed to prevent the attacks. Whether bush was warned or not, he had to get new people brought in as leaders of the CIA and had to hire more people in the CIA, which meant training and gather all the intelligence from scratch. Yes Gail Bush knew there was going to be an attack. What he didn’t know was when and where or how. It was Clinton who under estimated the risk, and I’m not so sure he didn’t withhold some critical info from Bush for political reasons. That may or may not be true, but is something to ponder. By the way IRaq was found to be partially funding or helping Al Qaeda. Though we didn’t find any I truly believe there were WMDs there, and if we would have gone in there initially instead or warning for 3 months to comply or else I think we would have found them and I do think Saddam hid them. He had plenty of time to do so. Oh yeah and Gail we went into Afganistan first. Though the world is a small world these days it is still bigger than you might think. Especially when we had to re-establish our intelligence connections that were lost during the Clinton years. Lastly to destroy your feeble assessment and so called facts. If we are attacked again during the next administration it will be Clintons fault not Bush’s. Will have Bush fail to capture Osama bin Laden? Yes. But Gail if it is such a simple task why don’t you do it. Also Gail what if Obama doesn’t change anything in our security policy, and we are attacked. You would blame Bush, and you may be right, but then again under your estimation Bush’s security policy isn’t any good so if Obama doesn’t change it. then it’s Obama’s fault. If he does change it then it is still Obamas fault. You gail are nothing more than a Clinton, Kerry, and Obama lover who is so short sighted that youy fail to see the big picture. Rather than doing what’s right for the country you wou;d rather point the finger. Yes Gail it is a known fact that republicans are better at security. Why? Because they aren’t a bunch of peace loving hippies, who would rather run and hide rather thanface the challenge. One last thing Gail have you noticed Obama avoid Fox news reporter questions. Hmm looks like your messiah is a spineless wonder after all.
Uhhh!!!…OK???
100%
You know that first WTC bombing was less than 60 days into the Clinton administration…. using YOUR logic, wouldn’t that make it Bush 1’s mistake ?
That “known fact” statement is usually followd by a lie or political chest pounding….
I know lots of democrats that wear military medals so that ” hippie” statement is wrong too, BTW , are there still hippies ? How OLD are you anyway ?
And last, if you measure courage by who talks to Fox News ( and when) , you have a warped sense of values…..
This war isn’t about freedom or national security, it’s about private contracts and corporate profits. The Iraq War costs U.S. taxpayers $100,000 per minute….Saddam must be wondering why he wasn’t as smart, ruthless and cunning…
We have found the enemy….
Let’s see….peace treaties between Israel and its enemies, Dems 2 - GOP, 0;Wars to save democracy successfully concluded, WWI (Wilson), WWII(FDR/Truman), Dems 2 - GOP 0; trade agreements negotiated, NAFTA (Dems), GATT (Dems), Dems 2 - GOP 0; successful extractions/interventions to save lives Somalia (Dems), Kosovo (Dems), Dems 2 - GOP 0;
Wars to be concluded by “secret plans;” Vietnam (GOP), Iraq (GOP), Afghanistan (GOP); GOP 3 - Dems 0; OSB and Sheik Muhammad 2 - GOP 0;GOP messes to be cleaned up by Dems, unlimited.
Yeah, the GOP is “better” on national security. NOT!
100%-Al Qaeda has been called that since sometime in the late 80’s.
HKCHAS
Since you don’t get to see my response due to this website having an error and I don’t feel like re-posting. Just know you got it all wrong on all of your counters to my point.
Hogan. I could careless about you bullet points because have nothing to do with security. However, FDR let Pearl Harbor get attacked. as one example to you flawfulness.
I’m am 100% correct in my point being true and cannot be proven wrong. Whether Al Qaeda was called that or not in the 80s has nothing to do with with my point so your point is meaningless. 100% is correct, you are wrong. Perhaps that is why you are SLAMMING your FIST.
Come on folks you can do better than this can’t you?
100%- It disturbs me the conviction you have in yourself being in fact, 100% correct, when in the first place, no one hardly ever is. Of the few posts of yours that I have read I can only gather that you are full of it. Here is a tip, copy your post with your mouse before you post it or maybe even compose the post in some other program all together such as Word or notepad if you are using a PC. I’d love to see the post that didn’t make it on the board.
I don’t have a point other than to tell you that when you say things like “of course they were not called that at the time” and in fact they were you are not 100% correct and puts the rest of your rant into question. I’m leaving for Shangri La today for the holidays so I’ll see you all when I return.
100%, please change you ID to 10% and go for the decaf at Starbuck’s instead of the caffinated