Larry Beinhart Bio Blog Index RSS 08.15.2006 Say it Loud, Say it Often, "Republicans are Bad on National Security" (32 comments ) READ MORE: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, George W. Bush Every Democrat running for national office - and local offices too, why not? - should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security." Then they should go on to say, here's why I'm saying it: 1. 9/11 happened on their watch. Of course, we can't say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings. 2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden. We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we've been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden's out there, he's proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That's a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That's very bad for national security. 3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them. A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It's also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were. 4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's power and prestige. Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America's intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared. The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11. After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can't win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined. 5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah. The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have. It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy. 6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas. Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us? 7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology. That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons. That would be incredibly bad for national security. Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US. Very bad for national security. 8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down. The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber. Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?! Republicans are bad on national security. 9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people. We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps. We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data. And what have we achieved by all of this? A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere. Republican are unimaginably bad on national security. Say it loud. Say it often, it's the truth, Republicans are bad on national security. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/say-it-loud-say-it-often_b_27322.html
Who can honestly say anything good regarding the US govt's approach (this includes any administration - be it Bush Republican or Clinton Democrat) to its Natl. security, when there has been absolutely no effort to stop the invasion from Mexico?? Why didn't the author mention this, unless he is just some sort of Democrat Shill.
They also suck on Fiscal discipline Due to the folly of Bush it's an absolutely certainty and guys like me will get a MASSIVE tax hike very soon. All neo-cons must die.
Medicare and Social Security, systems put in place long before Bush took office, will ensure that massive tax hike. What "folly" are you talking about? The Budget and/or Trade Deficits? The cost of the Iraq war? The Drug Bill? You're kidding me right? Remember, a year after Bush took office the economy basically ground to a halt due to 9-11. To respond to the premise of these thread ... Get Real. While the republican strategy on national security is much to be desired, NO-ONE, I mean NO ONE, thinks LIBERAL-DEMOCRATS have any more of a clue. John "I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it" Kerry ... Dean,Pelosis,Reid ... now there's a power trio! The only message I'd respond to personally at this point is: "We are utterly committed to total independance for our energy needs, we will soon abandon the Middle East and let them burn in their own flames. The money saved will be redirected towards developing energy sources WE and our FRIENDS OWN." Canada, the UK,the Aussies and the Japanese are on my short-list ...
Oh yes...quite right. How could I've been so wrong? Move away from the nonsensical deficit numbers and watch the sickening accumulating total debt. Can you say "off budget," with congressional complicity? I thought you could. Next I'm sure your gonna start singing the praises of the Patriot Act I and II? Guffaw! BTW: you can stop with the right-wing whack job references. I'm not a Democratâ¦never have been.
I'll agree, mine was the wrong approach. I'd imagine we'd agree far more than disagree. No matter what Bush did after 9-11 the surpluses of the late 90's were history. That said, you won't get an argument from me about the sickening expenses of our little Iraqi vacation.... The only point I was attempting to make, in regards to your expected "massive tax hike", was Bush is not the primary culprit. He certainly hasn't helped, but the financial time-bomb was light long before Bush took office. The patriot act doesn't bother me ... My apologies if I misinterpret your post..
Yea, you should vote for the Dems. They are so much more disciplined when it comes to spending. Besides, thanks to them over 40 million WORKING americans pay NO TAX and some get a refund (it's called re-distribution of wealth). According to the Dems, the only way we can solve the deficit is to RAISE TAXES! Let me ask you something. Do you really believe the reason we have a deficit is because our taxes are too low?