Dean: Bush Administration Weak On Defense?

• March 1, 2006

Howard Dean engages in some wishful thinking…

Weak on national security? I’m wiping tears from my eyes because I’m laughing so hard.
I’ll grant that there are valid criticisms to be made of the Bush administration on the national security front (such as their refusal to take the illegal immigration problem on our southern border seriously, for one), but to say that President Bush is the “weakest” administration on the issue in “many” years is ludicrous. Especially given the source of this criticism.
Remember last year when these same Democrats, Howard Dean among them, were questioning the timing of every terror alert, claiming that the Bush administration was just trying to keep the public scared? Remember when every rumor about the possible capture/death of Osama bin Laden was treated by Democrats as some sort of electoral tragedy manufactured by GOP politicians for the express purpose of getting Bush re-elected?
These people have made the idea that Republicans take terrorism too seriously central to their criticism of our government’s current leadership, yet now they want to tell us that Bush doesn’t take terrorism seriously enough?
I know the Democrats think they’ve found their wedge issue with this ports deal, but if they think they’re going to morph themselves into the “national security” party over night they’ve got another thing coming.

http://txfx.net/ Mark J

Weak?  Yes.  But not weakest by any means.
2Hotel9

And Dems have done so much better, mcairhead. How, exactly have they stopped attacks against all those targets again? I don’t recall them doing anything other than to obstruct and obfuscate. Who, exactly, is trying to stop us from surrveiling enemy communications? Who, exactly, keeps putting our operational plans out into public veiw? Who, exactly, has thrown roadblocks in front of bodyarmor and APC/ACC vehicle system aquisition for the last 20 years? Who, exactly, has weakened our imigration regulations since the’70s? Which political party is using every bombing in Iraq for their political gain? Waddle on back DU and dailykos for some more talking points, these you troted out are a bit lame.
mcair

And Dems have done so much better, mcairhead.

Try to stay on topic 29. Republicans have been in office for some time. The anti-terrorism measures recommended by the 9/11 commission were supposed to have been implemented on their watch. They havent’ been. You have no argument.

Who, exactly, is trying to stop us from surrveiling enemy communications?

No-one is trying to prevent any surveillance. Democrats and Republicans are simply demanding that the president abide by the law. The NSA can listen to anyone, without any prior notice. That’s within the scope of FISA. What the president has failed to do is obtain a warrant within 72 hours. That’s against the law. 

Who, exactly, keeps putting our operational plans out into public veiw? Who, exactly, has thrown roadblocks in front of bodyarmor and APC/ACC vehicle system aquisition for the last 20 years? Who, exactly, has weakened our imigration regulations since the’70s? Which political party is using every bombing in Iraq for their political gain?

WTF? Ramble ramble, bullshit, bullshit. You’re "independant" mask is slipping 29. Who is responsible for our troops lacking the necessary armor in Iraq? Is that what you’re asking? That would be Def.Sec. Rumsfeld. Responsible for Abu Graib? Rumsfeld. Why is he still in office?
mcair

Looking through the list, I see lots of Congress fails to, the Senate fails to., Congress has failed to…  Not so many the Administration failed to…

I may be mistaken, but it’s the president’s party that has majority in both House and Senate, and that’s been the case for some time. Part of their purpose is to enact his agenda. They control which bills come to the floor. They have maorities on all committees. So I’ll partially agree with you here, the Republican congress shares  the blame.
 

Demonstrate your powers of raciocination.  You mean "rationalization"? What is "raciocination"?
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

mcair reaches, Wanton failure to adequately protect US Ports, power and water supplies, chemical installations, US Borders etc.etc.
Just read the whole sorry story for yourself:

Setting aside the fact that the report was given, in part, by the partisan hack Richard Ben-Veniste; and also by one of the sources of the problem (Jamie Gorelick), what, exactly, is the fault of the administration? Most of the criticism should go to the Senate and Congress.

Mcair, it seems that you are simply a person who is here for partisan sniping.
2Hotel9

Topic is National Security. Dems have a dismal record on it. Always have. And yes, cherry picking is bullshit, child. Your list of talking points and links just don’t cut it, mcairhead. Try again. Hint, read the whole thing, make notes, do a cross comparative analysis with other documents and reports on the issue of National Security and the GWoT. Then actually think about what you have learned. Then form an opinion to share we others. I know that is alot of work, it is what adults do to learn about events in the world around us. Good luck.
2Hotel9

So you are not going to read the report? This debate is over. Goodbye.
Carrick

Mcair:

Wanton failure to adequately protect US Ports, power and water supplies, chemical installations, US Borders etc.etc

Looking through the list, I see lots of Congress fails to, the Senate fails to., Congress has failed to…  Not so many the Administration failed to…

Demonstrate your powers of raciocination.  How about giving us a concrete example of what Bush should have done different that doesn’t expose your ignorance of how legisltion gets passed and put into law.

So far all I see is another reason to crown the DNC the party of no.  As in, nobody can do anything right, but they have no ideas on how to make it better, and they’ll make damn certain nobody gets nothing done.

 
2Hotel9

Oh, and mcairhead? Don’t bother linking to edited 9/11 commision report. I have the complete text, plus all addendums and ancillary reports on disc. Freedom Of Information Act of 1974, I love it. Want to read the complete Duelfer Report?IIC Oil For Food Report? Pre-War Intell Assessment? Comprehensive Report on Acquisition and Dispersal of Materiel and Equipment for United Nations Aid and Support Operations- Africa,Asia, and South America? Got that in paper only, all 7000 pages. So please, no more chop shop versions, thank you very much.
mcair

Hint, read the whole thing, make notes, do a cross comparative analysis with other documents and reports on the issue of National Security and the GWoT.

Blah…blah….blalalalalala….

Who can debate this crap? Can you deny the abysmal rankings? You can read that report front back, sideways and backwards and every time the result is a failing grade for your "strong on defense" party. Don’t bother with a follow up post unless you’ve got an argument and not meaningless blather.
http://txfx.net/ Mark J

<blockquote> I’ll bite.  Give me an example of where Bush is weak on defense.</blockquote>

Border security.  He’s more focused on indirect threats to our security (Iraq) than direct threats to our security (any terrorist or criminal can easily just waltz over the border).
mcair

Setting aside the fact that the report was given, in part, by the partisan hack Richard Ben-Veniste; and also by one of the sources of the problem (Jamie Gorelick), what, exactly, is the fault of the administration? Most of the criticism should go to the Senate and Congress.

A question I keep having to ask here: don’t you have a better argument other than "he’s a partisan, it’s the liberal media" BS one-size-fits-all excuse you guys trot out whenever uncomfortable facts are revealed? I have not heard your reasoning from any elected official, but often from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.

Can you deny that any of the issues raised are not major factors in keeping this nation secure? Running off on a half-assed war with insufficient troops and no plans for the aftermath is not what I define as a leader that is "strong on defense", Shoe.
mcair

So please, no more chop shop versions, thank you very much.

So you’re saying that the HTML version I linked to is in some way incorrect or misleading? What are you trying to say Mr. FOIA? Can you dispute the content in anyway?
mcair

Wanton failure to adequately protect US Ports, power and water supplies, chemical installations, US Borders etc.etc.

Just read the whole sorry story for yourself:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:dx-k7ChcU1kJ:www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf+9/11+commission+rating&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en
mcair

Nonsense Rob? Listen to Negroponte: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11610145/

Aren’t we about due for one of your classic "quietly winning" fairytales that completely ignores reality?
Carrick

Mark:

Weak?  Yes.  But not weakest by any means.

 I’ll bite.  Give me an example of where Bush is weak on defense.
mcair

Reminder: Osama Bin Laden masterminded the attacks of 9/11.

He is still on the run while our forces in Iraq make valiant attempts to suppress civil war in Iraq.

Fighting the wrong war, and turning iraq into a factory for terrorism. That’s the legacy of George Walker Bush.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Weak is a relative term.  Who are we comparing Bush to?  And is it fair to compare his post-9/11 administration to that of any modern, pre-9/11 President?

It is a whole new world.  Bush has areas on national security where he deserves criticism, but this above is nonsense.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I’ll second Mark on border security, and will add that we do need to do better on port security as well (though that has nothing to do with the ports deal making headlines now as that deal has nothing to do with security).

SayAnythingBlog.com

Dean: Bush Administration Weak On Defense?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments