« The New Democrat Election Theme Starts in 5... 4... 3... | Main | What Ever Happened To The Underwater New Orleans Bus Fleet? »

Democrats to Introduce Security Plan

Updated

The House Democrats are going to introduce a new security plan on Wednesday that they say will protect the America:

Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.


In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction _ "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate and as Democrats seek to cut into the public perception that the Republicans are stronger on national security.

Take a look at the national security heavyweights who will be present at the press conference when this plan is unveiled:

Rep. Harry Reid
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Madeleine Albright
General Wesley Clark

Actions speak louder than words. These folks can show up to a press conference and say they're going to be tough on national security, but it won't change the fact that they fought President Bush on virtually every national security issue that came before them in the House. Harry Reid proudly proclaimed "We killed the Patriot Act." Nancy Pelosi worked along side Reid to ensure a Patriot Act filibuster. Pelosi also worked against our military's recruiting efforts.

Madeleine Albright's presence will add nothing to this affair. Her moral relativist view of foreign policy and national security should frighten all Americans. And General Clark simply isn't convincing as a credible national security expert.

Osama won't be intimidated by this bunch.

Update:

I love Gateway Pundit's response:

Watchit, Osama! Dems Are Gonna Gitcha!


Those Dem-Hawks have had it!
Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer are packing heat and a united Warrior Left is gonna kick some OBL A$$!

Mark your calendars. Today is a historic day. Democrats are announcing today, four-and-one-half years after 9-11, that THEY have saved a can of Whoopass for the jihadists! Well, Alright!

Gateway Pundit also does a great job of explaining the Dems' plan and why it can't be taken seriously.

Update II:

Mary Katharine Ham at Hugh Hewitt has a comprehensive post of Republican reaction as well as a few loony leftist links.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats to Introduce Security Plan:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Will High Court Slash Bush's Powers?

» All Things Beautiful linked with The "Waiting Bush Out" Policy

» Don Surber linked with Democrats Unveil National Security Plan

Comments (42)

I've always wanted to go in... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I've always wanted to go into a meeting with the big bosses at work and start off my report as, "Well Gentlemen, we're F....d"

If the democrats make any signficant gains in either of the next couple of elections, take a guess what my openning sentence is going to be in Wizbang's comment section.

Yes they are going to doubl... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Yes they are going to double the special forces.
And double the number of spies.
Next they will get pennies from heaven.

I have always believed, tha... (Below threshold)
wickedpinto:

I have always believed, that the capture of terrorists within our own borders, the HALT of triple ninja assasins who target our nations leaders, and the coercian of enemies capable of doing my nation harm, is a GOOD idea. Should I run on the Democratic Ticket? or should I come up with a REAL EFFING PLAN!!!

DUH! DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH, the Dems are running on DUH! 12th graders are saying "DUH" but what is your plan, and the dems are just giving them "DUH!"

as an atheist for me to say the next, is an expression of how STUPID one must be. . . . . "FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST!!!! DO YOU DEMOCRATS HAVE A THOUGHT! let alone a PLAN!?!?!?!

DUH DUH DUH, if you count on DUH for your electorate? you will either lose horribly, or you will prove that America DESERVES defeat, YOU!!!! You, Democrats, you are siding with ignorance, and stupidity, rather than effort and accomplishment, you are HOPING that we, the US, the greatest nation that has ever been built and graced the face of this nation will lose, you WANT us to be DUH!'s in our thinking? IS THAT your PLAN!??!?!?!?!?!?

You WILL lose, and if you don't? GOD HELP AMERICA! Not because Dem's run congress, but because you GAINED congress based on the philosophy of DUH! You CAPITALIZE on ignorance, YOU are the King Georges, YOU were ONCE a party FOR America, but now you PROVE that you are against it. If you win, if REID is the "leader" You have failed not just the congress, but the nation, you have started us towards a NEW revolution.

DUH! Pelosi, you got your "Majority" status, DUH DURBIN! you can call our trooms nazi's from the top of their legislative branch, DUH! You presidential wannabe's, you have DESTROYED! the value of the thing you worked so hard to rule.

You don't wanna be leaders, you wanna be DICTATORS exclusive in your governance, if you say otherwise, then speak truth WITH power, not just against it. Or are you all cowards.

I've heard reference to BDS... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

I've heard reference to BDS, but these posts are verging on DDS. If the policy is sound (though never completely popular), too much spinning looks desperate, and micro-management will find one tripping over one's own feet while dancing to please the hypothetical "public". All the kvetching over Madeleine Albright beating Boy George in a peter-pulling contest should focus the Bushbots' minds on how they've come to such dire straits that they should care. Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead! If that charge should give you pause, the fault is not without, but within.

Oh good, the Democrats are ... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Oh good, the Democrats are going to add more spies. Well, that's a nice change in policy as they were busy slashing intelligence budgets pre-9/11. Yet, it just kinda sounds like they still have no clue, as it they think we can just call up Lockheed or Boeing and have them whip-up a hundred or so Stealthy Personnel Impersonating Espionage Surveillance droids.

Hmmm.For goodness ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

For goodness sake. You can't just double the special forces as if you were ordering take out chinese. There's a reason why the special forces, and special operations troops in general, are currently understaffed. Because the requirements are high enough that only a relatively few can make the grade. Even then it can take years of hard training to make a veteran special forces soldier.

And you can't just double the number of spies either. It takes even more ability to be an actual spy, vs a courier or analyst, than it does to be in the special forces. And the recruiting, training and development of a spy can take decades.

Is there anyone with an actual appreciation for reality in the Democratic party?

Waitaminnit.What's... (Below threshold)
Ted:

Waitaminnit.

What's the problem with increasing the number of special forces or spies? Is your problem the fact that we can't do it instantly? If so, then we can't ever *start* training the new forces, because we want them RIGHT NOW!

Regardless of what you think of the rest of the package, I don't see that beginning the process of increasing those assets as being a bad thing.

What do they think... (Below threshold)
Kurt Montandon:

What do they think they can accomlish that Bush's steely resolve and Republican competence can't?

Oh, wait, hold on a sec ...

General Wesley Clark? I tho... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

General Wesley Clark? I thought it was Weasley Clark. Thanks for the clarification. Four of the dimmest bulbs on the string and they are going to win the war on terror for us? God help us all!
It would take all four of them to carry Bush's jock.
Chuck

In other news: 'Pigs Fly'<... (Below threshold)
LJD:

In other news: 'Pigs Fly'

" General Clark simply isn'... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

" General Clark simply isn't convincing as a credible national security expert.'

Your pentagonal attack on the messengers fails
the smell test and collapses with a thud when
you stutter an undefined objection to Clark.

Can you really defend the abysmal record of
this WH and their 'Apple Dumpling Gang' approach
to the WoT by heckling the opposition?

Gain some credibility by honestly appraising
the performance of these ham-handed
microencephalists.

There's no need to heckle t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

There's no need to heckle the Democrats, just feed them back their own talking points such as "what's your timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq?" Just changing the number of boots on the ground is no plan. Democrats, where's your plan?

Regardless of the level of detail the Democrats come up with, as unlikely as that is, just keep repeating the mantra "Democrats have no plan." Let them face into their own B.S. for a while.

Ed,I beg to differ, ... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Ed,
I beg to differ, Nancy and Harry's plan to increase Special Forces and Spies can be accomplished instantly.
Special Forces - Just change the color of the berets and viola, Special Forces! You don't really believe that they care wether or not the new ones are qualified do you?
Spies - This is a really easy one. Valerie Plame has at least a dozen friends at Langley, boom instant NOC's.Send them to the Middle East and nary a soul will spot their lily white skin.
You see you just have to realise that when Nancy and Harry say that they have a plan it is more than just empty words.

We're arguing over this as ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

We're arguing over this as if the dems are being honest and really intend to try to do these things. If they were serious, they'd be proposing legislation NOW to increase the budget for the special forces and CIA.

All they are doing is responding to the critics who tell them that they look weak on national security. They think that by naming some "specifics" they will gain credibility with the ignorant public who don't realize how hard it is to find men and women who are capable of cutting the mustard in the special forces and covert ops.

Style over substance.

If only the evil George Bus... (Below threshold)

If only the evil George Bush hadn't vetoed all that bold Congressional budgeting for more spies and special forces we'd be stoning bin laden in Times Square right now. Good thing we're going to get a bold new plan to 'have more spies' and 'have more special forces' to go ahead and do what Bush has been ignoring and 'eliminate' bin laden...ah, heady days in Demo-dom. I guess I might have to vote for them and their bold new plans...

I mean, c'mon, couple this with the fact that Dean is telling us we'll suddenly be energy independent if more Dems are elected (without drilling more for gas and oil)...conservative or liberal, you gotta vote for them if they can make all that happen. I mean, really, you whip up some spies who find bin laden then send out your new special forces to 'eliminate' him, then pull all of our troops out of Iraq and hope for the best there, then I guess you go ahead and pull our forces out of S. Korea, Germany, etc. because, really, 3 years in Iraq is just unacceptable, let alone 50+ years in places like Germany, and put all those folks to work on new levees in New Orleans (because, after all, our recession-bound economy has been so utterly destroyed by Bush that there are no jobs in the private world for them), after doing all that it's only a short hop, skip, and a jump to stitching up that Social Security system that just needs a little TLC (unlike when it was a crisis when Billy was in office, guess George fixed it up a little or something, or maybe Billy fixed it when we weren't looking in between issuing all those pardons to former associates in his last couple of hours and implementing new logging rules that, oddly, weren't important for the first 8 years or so of his term but somehow became crucial environmental protections that he provided that Bush did away with), taking care of that pesky poverty that only goes up when a Republican is in the White House, and 'double, triple, or fourple' the size of the Dept. of Education since that seems to be all that's standing in the way of our inner city youths' academic success, make it a crime to make profits, because, well, it's just not fair, implement some good solid policies to make it a crime to fire anyone like in France (stuff like that really fires up the young voters, it seems), shut down our power generating facilities, except for hydro (but not where there are fish or crabs or nesting birds or where any dams are needed), solar (once Gore and a few of his buddies make it economical, which they would've done if he'd been elected), and wind (except not where Ted Kennedy or New York vacation home owners might have to see the windmills and only if they don't kill any birds) so that global warming stops (oops, also need to outlaw private transportation by petro powered vehicles, don't forget that), conveniently leading to the closing of those Bush administration death camps known as 'coal mines'...

I'd vote for them if they could do that, wouldn't you?

By the way ,its not Wesley... (Below threshold)
virgo:

By the way ,its not Wesley Clark its Ashley Wilkes .. and what an incredible Joke. semanticleo , this w.houses abyssmal record ? What are your buddies Harry and Nancy going to do ? order at least 1 attack a year so they can stop it and make it look like they care..there have been no attacks You irrelevant Moron.

I see Daschle's name isn't ... (Below threshold)

I see Daschle's name isn't on that. After the 'You don't professionalize until you Federalize' speech of his, and the abysmal performance of Homeland Security letting through radioactive materials, I'm REALLY sure that NOW they'll be able to get it right.

Yeah. Sure.

I'm supposed to trust Democrats who have consistently shown they're out of relevant ideas, actively fighting damn near anything proposed by Republicans as far as the economy and the WoT goes, and willing to cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan if they think it'd get them a few votes?

I'll look at what they've got - but they have to have something BETTER than what's going on now, they have to have WORKABLE ideas instead of half-baked, half-formed concepts that have the block "Then A Miracle Occurs" right before their expected results in their flowchart.

J.


"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osa... (Below threshold)
virgo:

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osama and his cronies are intimidated by the current bunch ! Hey Lex , he,s hiding instead of walking around out in the open like he did during the Clinton administration looking for volunteers ,raising funding, helping Sandy Burglar shred any link to 911 that the last bunch caused or and had .. that is if he,s still alive.

The Democrats have been pla... (Below threshold)

The Democrats have been playing the game of "there is no national security problem" -- wiretapping of overseas conseversations, war in Iraq, etc. -- for months now. Now they want us to believe that we really do have a problem that they're the ones to fix it?

Stingray: a blog for salty Christians

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osa... (Below threshold)
virgo:

"WHAT MAKES YOU THINK osama and his cronies are intimidated by the current bunch ! Hey Lex , he,s hiding instead of walking around out in the open like he did during the Clinton administration looking for volunteers ,raising funding, helping Sandy Burglar shred any link to 911 that the last bunch caused or and had .. that is if he,s still alive.

The original version of the... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

The original version of the plan called for hiring "super l33t ninjas" that could "breath fire" and "shoot bullets from their eyes"... but apparently the focus groups snickered at that version so they chose to re-word it.

- MikeB

"Democrats, where's your p... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

"Democrats, where's your plan?"

Shorter version of;

Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are
you going to do about the damage?

Bill Clinton & Al Gore to D... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Bill Clinton & Al Gore to Democrats:

"Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are
you going to do about the damage?"

Got it: Republican good, De... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Got it: Republican good, Democrat bad. Don't even have to think anymore; just have to know which party they're in, by golly.

How can a liberal pacifist dickhead like General Wesley Clark claim to know more about defense than a real, self-sacrificial, battle-scarred heroine like Kim Priestap?

What branch of the service did you serve in, by the way?

P.S. Keep it simple, Kimmy. It worked for Goebbels.

Bush could have fought a wa... (Below threshold)
M.A.:

Bush could have fought a war on terror,
But focused on Iraq instead.
Since this invasion was an error,
Too many people now are dead.

And as for Rummy, and for Cheney,
They think they're fighting the Cold War.
They babble lots of miscellany
But don't know what they're fighting for.

The Democrats, like Reid, Obama
Pelosi, Reed, have flaws, no doubt,
But still, they want to catch Osama,
Who Bush is not concerned about.

Who tried to make our ports secure?
The Democrats. Who shot it down?
Republicans. What is the cure?
More Democrats in D.C. town.

The Dems have signed up actual thinkers
To think up terror-fighting tricks;
Repubs are merely lazy stinkers,
Still stuck in nineteen-eighty-six.

To occupy Iraq forever
Appears to be the Bushies' plan;
The plan, I think, is not too clever --
And they may lose Afghanistan.

To praise the Dems with strength and surity
May make the righties scream and curse,
But when it comes to our security,
One thing I know: Repubs are worse.

Out of curiosity, what make... (Below threshold)
Lex:

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Osama bin Laden is intimidated by the *current* bunch?

Old Democrat Party Security... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Old Democrat Party Security Strategy: Block. Thwart. Obstruct.

New Democrat Party Security Strategy: Block. Thwart. Obstruct. "Re-word" policy that's already in place. Claim it to be yours.

They...still...don't...get...it.

Rep. Harry Reid... (Below threshold)
Dave in NYC:

Rep. Harry Reid

Harry Reid is a Senator.

These folks can show up to a press conference and say they're going to be tough on national security, but it won't change the fact that they fought President Bush on virtually every national security issue that came before them in the House.

That is interesting, considering only one of them is a member of the House.

Pelosi also worked against our military's recruiting efforts.

Your link on this does not work.

Madeleine Albright's presence will add nothing to this affair. Her moral relativist view of foreign policy and national security should frighten all Americans.

Did you actually read Albright's op-ed? It wasn't about moral relativism at all. It was about recognizing the fact that not all of our enemies are the same or work for the same team, and that sometimes you end up helping one enemy when you hurt another (and sometimes you can hurt one enemy by helping another). This logic shouldn't be new to Republicans; it's the same logic they use to justify our assistance to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and our assistance to Bin Laden during the Russian war in Afghanistan. What Albright advocates is actually much less frightening than either of those actions, which were undertaken by Republican administrations.

And General Clark simply isn't convincing as a credible national security expert.

Why not?

Now that we've cau... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Now that we've caused this car wreck, what are you going to do about the damage?

The democrats give ad and comfort to the enemy by their incessant and often dishonest opposition and some still think they're blameless. Now they want to show they're qualified to lead, but they can't answered their own criticism when it's fed back in their face. Where's their timetable for withdraw? What's their plan? They have no plan. They have no plan. They have no plan.

I almost feel sorry for any democrat that might find themselves living in the White House in 2009. It'll be time to put-up or shut-up and whatever they do republicans can just replay the democrat's talking points. It's just so much easier to criticize than to perform.


Hmmm.What... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

What's the problem with increasing the number of special forces or spies? Is your problem the fact that we can't do it instantly? If so, then we can't ever *start* training the new forces, because we want them RIGHT NOW!

It isn't a case of beginning training. The problem, as I outlined in my comment, is that the standards are extremely high. Only a relatively few number of soldiers meet those requirements.

As it is the total number of special forces/operations soldiers has been increased to the maximum possible by keeping the standards but relaxing the training process. Previous to 9/11 it was standard practice for special forces units to set the maximum number of successful candidates and then hammer the hopeful applicants until enough either washed out or gave up. They changed that so there isn't a pre-set maximum allowed any longer, but the training requirements haven't been reduced so the training is still extremely difficult and so many still wash out or give up.

And yet that maximum is really just wishful thinking because that maximum will likely never be met simply because the requirements are so tough. You can't simply shove a regular soldier through a training process and then automatically get a special forces soldier. It simply doesn't work that way.

Because of the enormously difficult and stressful jobs special forces soldiers do they must be extremely hardy, tough, strong with enormous endurance and, most of all, an unwillingness to quit. Additionally any such team will operate in the harshest environments imaginable with no support so these teams must be able to rely on the abilities of each member. You can't throw in just any old warm body into one of these teams and expect either the same level of performance or even survival.

Frankly the simplest analogy I can think of, and take note that most analogies suck, is that of a fisherman. A fisherman can declare that he will catch 50 fish today, but that doesn't mean that either he will catch that many or that there are 50 fish for him to catch. A declaration of intent without the ability to follow through is simply useless.

And that is this nonsense about doubling the special forces.

Osama Bin Liquidated... you... (Below threshold)
lakestate:

Osama Bin Liquidated... you won't see him anymore. Too bad it'll dash the Dems "Big Plans."
The Dems have been running from the WOT for 4+ years, now all of a sudden they're going to give us a virtual plan to win it? Hmmmm, must be an election year - ya think? Too bad they don't realize mid-term elections are won locally, not globally or nationally. They'll never "get it." (Thank God.)

Those who think of Wesley C... (Below threshold)
Lokki:

Those who think of Wesley Clark as a brilliant military strategist, might want to ask some people who were in the military with him in Europe about his reputation was among the military community. His judgement was rather poor in the Bosnian affair...

It wasn't good.

He was removed early from his command there because of his actions...

Among them -

While commanding NATO troops in defense of Muslim Kosovo and against Serbian Christians, for example, Clark commanded a subordinate British General to attack Russian troops that had landed without NATO permission at the airport in Kosovo's capital. The General Sir Mike Jackson refused Clark's risky orders, saying: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you!"

In the Balkans Clark also pursued policies that increased civilian casualties, such as deliberate bombing from high altitude and cutting off fuel, food and energy from the civilians of Belgrade in wintertime.

Robert Novak quoted one diplomat (speaking about Clark) as saying

"How could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be (Supreme Allied Commander of Europe)?"


" It's just so much easier ... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

" It's just so much easier to criticize than to perform."

Mayhaps the current occupants of the WH should
spend more time in criticism of the war critics
so their dismal performance is no longer the
subject.

Oh wait! You BushApologists are
mimicking that very strategy!

This tough stand would have... (Below threshold)

This tough stand would have even been more effective if they had taken such an 'aggressive' stance in the eight years they controled the Executive Branch of our government...

Imagine if they:
1. Doubled the number of special forces and
2. Add more spies

BEFORE we were attacked on 9/11.

However, from 1993 - 2001 we:
1. Cut our military by 40%
2. And cut our human intelligence capabilities

LateR

Enough with the partisan ch... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Enough with the partisan cheering already...! Damn.

Dems say they have a plan, and Repubs laugh and snicker. Most of these posts sound like so much cheerleading for each side, vs. a substantive review of the issues at stake.

So my two cents, to see whether Dems really mean business:

* Does the announcement of this new Plan mean that Dems now take the issue of Islamofascist terrorism seriously, or is still merely a "law enforcement" issue?

* What exactly does "real security" mean to Reid et.al.? Can they describe it in concrete, executable terms?

* If the Dems disagree with GWB's handling of WoT, why did GWB win re-election with the highest popular vote count in history?

* Have the Dems finally realized that chants like "No Blood for Oil" are not only ignorant, but are a threat to US national security? Can they prevent nationwide economic chaos from taking place if the ~40% share of daily domestic US oil consumption purchased from the Middle East is suddenly taken off the market? Are Dems going to open up exploration and drilling in ANWR to hedge against this threat? Or can they roll out an alternative fuel infrastructure to replace this demand, across all catagories of goods and services dependent upon crude oil and its derivatives to function each day?

* Why haven't Dems been pushing GWB to beef up numbers of boots in the armed forces, including SOCOM, by adding funding for additional billets? Why haven't Dems introduced bills mandating additional funding for combat personnel billets before now? What are their concrete plans to add additional boots on the ground, where those boots (SOCOM personnel) require a much higher, and more expensive and time consuming, level of training? Ditto for "spies"?

* If OBL is still considered such a threat to the US (vs Zarkawi(sp?) and his brood), why did OBL choose to merely send a "threatening videotape" to US voters in October 2004, instead of a terrorist bombing of, say, NYC, Boston, DC, or Philadelphia central train stations, or bomb the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, equivalent to what he did in Madrid just prior to elections in Spain earlier in that year?

* If the Dems disagree on the specifics of the USA PATRIOT Act, where was their alternative act, that would tear down the "Gorelick wall" between law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military, as recommended by the 9/11 commission?

* Where was the Democratic response condemning Sandy Berger for committing gross errors of judgement by his attempt at ferreting out classified documents from the National Archives?

* If the Dems think that invading a country to fight against a strongman is wrong, why did they allow Clinton to land troops in Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc. back in the 1990's? Where was the Democratic outcry against those actions? When Lebanon protested en-masse a few months ago against its 20+ year Syrian occupation, how many Democrats supported the Lebanese desire to resist and end this occupation?

I would love to have these questions answered. After all, I don't think GWB has gone nearly far enough in fighting the WoT to guarantee long-term security in the Middle East. He allows Iran to fight a low-level proxy war in Iraq, and he allows "our friends" the Saudis to fund terrorism and pursue their own nuclear program. He continues to provide the $2B/yr bribe that Jimmah set up to pay off the Egyptians in return for a handshake from Sadat to Begin at Camp David in 1977 (never mind that Sadat's own countrymen expressed their displeasure with that handshake via an assassin's bullet three years later). And Bush continues to ignore the worst terrorism threat of all, porous and undefended borders between the US and Mexico.

The shame of it all is, so many people are worried about border security that if the Dems had a credible plan to enforce existing immigration laws and prevent the unchecked flow of "undocumented" aliens into the US (read: illegal), I and many others like me would vote for Dems this time around on that basis alone - since CONUS border defense covers more ground in one single issue towards fighting the WoT than any other, IMHO.

If only...

And Bush continue... (Below threshold)
Dave in NYC:


And Bush continues to ignore the worst terrorism threat of all, porous and undefended borders between the US and Mexico.

Why is the undefended border with Mexico a bigger threat than the undefended border with Canada?

* If OBL is still considered such a threat to the US (vs Zarkawi(sp?) and his brood), why did OBL choose to merely send a "threatening videotape" to US voters in October 2004, instead of a terrorist bombing of, say, NYC, Boston, DC, or Philadelphia central train stations, or bomb the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, equivalent to what he did in Madrid just prior to elections in Spain earlier in that year?

The same type of question could have been asked in 1996...why did he wait until 2001 to hit inside the U.S. if he was such a threat? They call this a "pre-9/11 mindset".

As for the rest of your questions -- if these are questions that seriously concern you, maybe you should take some time and objectively research some of these questions yourself. Maybe set up a blog to look into it. The answers to many of these questions are out there and it would likely only take some google searches to find them.

Hmmm.Thos... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Those who think of Wesley Clark as a brilliant military strategist, might want to ask some people who were in the military with him in Europe about his reputation was among the military community. His judgement was rather poor in the Bosnian affair...

What's even more amusing was the scandal over the Serbian tanks. General Clark was evidently extremely proud the USAF had destroyed most if not all of the Serbian tanks in the bombing campaign.

Only problem was that the "tanks" that were destroyed were actually wooden mockups with a lit firepot inside to give it an IR signature. Since the fighter-bombers were restricted to 30,000+ ft altitude they couldn't tell the difference between a real tank and a wooden mockup with that lit firepot. So we ended up spending millions of dollars worth of munitions to destroy a mass of plywood.

I still remember the shock running around when the Serbian tanks rolled out largely unharmed.

Dave in NYC wrote:... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Dave in NYC wrote:

As for the rest of your questions -- if these are questions that seriously concern you, maybe you should take some time and objectively research some of these questions yourself. Maybe set up a blog to look into it. The answers to many of these questions are out there and it would likely only take some google searches to find them.

Dave, do you have a clue here? Of course I could answer these questions via Google searches, through a blog, or any number of other means.

THAT ISN'T THE POINT!!!

Is it too much to require responses from the "really, we DO understand national security" party? These people want to be in positions where they can determine, and write, national policy. As a voter, is it too much for me to want to know what their positions are, on questions that I - and very likely, many people like me - consider to be vital to proving their point?

And your reply about OBL "not doing anything in 1996" completely misses the point, IMHO. Several things were different: a President whose military responses to regional conflicts was weak and ineffectual, a wholesale ignorance of the developing middle eastern islamofascist threat, and the time, effort, and funding required to pull off an operation on the scale of 9/11.

By contrast, Oliver North - flawed though he may have been - correctly assessed the OBL threat as far back as the mid-1980's. North made no secret of his opinion on the matter. And OBL WAS stepping up his operations tempo through the 1990's, against US facilities and interests in Africa and the Middle East.

In 2004, however, al-Queda's C3 infrastructure was decimated by US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq enough to where the Madrid job was quite sloppy compared to previous operations - and al-Queda had neither the logistics or the intelligence to pull off a Madrid event on US soil in time for the 2004 Presidential election.

So no, I don't want my own opinions regarding my questions. I want answers from the politicians. And I will vote accordingly.

Hmmm.1. <blockquot... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

1.

Why is the undefended border with Mexico a bigger threat than the undefended border with Canada?

Perhaps because the economy, corruption and violence in Mexico is far higher than in Canada and there aren't 100,000,000 Mexicans living in Canada looking to cross the *northern* border into America?

2.

The same type of question could have been asked in 1996...why did he wait until 2001 to hit inside the U.S. if he was such a threat? They call this a "pre-9/11 mindset".

Because OBL and Al-Qaida were progressively getting more and more confident that their attacks would go unpunished. Until the 1998 Embassy bombings AQ operated on a relatively small basis. But with the dual bombings, and the lack of any response beyond a token one, OBL figured that it was finally time to plan for a direct attack.

That's what you do if you're unsure of the enemy's ability and willingness to fight. You start small. Nibble around the edges. Provoke and retreat. With each provocation step up the tempo and the severity to bleed the enemy more and more. And once you're convinced the enemy is too weak to respond effectively, then you go for the jugular and go for the decapitation strike.

It's frankly the same strategy used in wargames.

Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, m... (Below threshold)
phuong:

Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you

Dave, do you have... (Below threshold)
Dave in NYC:


Dave, do you have a clue here? Of course I could answer these questions via Google searches, through a blog, or any number of other means.

THAT ISN'T THE POINT!!!

Is it too much to require responses from the "really, we DO understand national security" party? These people want to be in positions where they can determine, and write, national policy. As a voter, is it too much for me to want to know what their positions are, on questions that I - and very likely, many people like me - consider to be vital to proving their point?

You are missing the point here. Prominent Democrats and liberals have commented on many of the issues you ask about. Or else the questions are so non-intuitive or biased that they are not worth replying to. But I am sure that if you would look around, you can find the Democratic position on those issues, or explanations of why you questions make no sense.

Another suggestion is that you contact the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or whoever and ask them to respond to your questions/accusations. But to simply post these questions on a blog message board and then complain you're not getting answers is silly.

Perhaps because the economy, corruption and violence in Mexico is far higher than in Canada and there aren't 100,000,000 Mexicans living in Canada looking to cross the *northern* border into America?

I thought we were talking about national security here, not illegal immigration. The foreigners who want to come to the U.S. to escape the poverty and violence of their own countries are *not* the ones I'm worried about when it comes to national security.

Virgo, we've handed him a t... (Below threshold)
Lex:

Virgo, we've handed him a target-rich training ground in Iraq, in case you hadn't noticed.

Meanwhile, our ports, nuclear generators and chem plants remain about as vulnerable today as they were five years ago. If I were Osama, I'd be campaigning for a 3rd Bush term.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy