The Dems are unveiling their plan on national security, a position paper outlining what they stand for.
It appears to be little more than the same old, same old. Empty promises. No substance. Lame rhetoric.
I imagine they are hoping that no one will notice their vacuousness.
How foolish!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.
Let's not forget that the Dems had bin Laden. He was there for the taking and they blew it.
President of the Republic of the Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, offered bin Laden to Bill Clinton in 1997.
From the PBS program "Hunting Bin Laden," an installment on Frontline:
INTERVIEWER: The New York Times reported that in February of 1997 that you sent President Clinton a personal letter to allow US intelligence and counter-terrorism people to come here to the Sudan, to have access to anything they wanted, to stop terrorism.
BASHIR: That is true. I have sent a letter like this to President Clinton, until this moment we did not get any response to that.
INTERVIEWER: You have ambassadors in the United States. Have they asked?
BASHIR: It is our ambassador who took the letter and handed it there and tried to follow-up the matter with the White House ... . But nothing came and it was turned down.
So now we're to believe that the Dems will "eliminate" bin Laden. Yeah, right. That promise is guaranteed to be broken.
The Dems should have "eliminated" bin Laden when the president of Sudan asked Clinton to take him. Bin Laden was a known enemy of the U.S. and they failed to "eliminate" the threat he posed to Americans.
The elusive bin Laden was in the palm of Clinton's hand and he did NOTHING.
Their plan for troop redeployment seems as elusive as bin Laden.
The Dems obviously were too afraid to set a timeline, even though they keep pressuring the Bush Administration to present a timeline for withdrawal. The Dems also provide no deadline for American troops to be out of Iraq completely.
"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.
First, I don't think the Dems are uniting. The likes of Feingold and Murtha certainly can't be happy with such a meaningless agenda.
Second, when it comes to national security, the Dems are not tough and they are not smart. (See Clinton's failure to deal with bin Laden.)
The safety of the American people should not be in the hands of Harry "We killed the Patriot Act" Reid.
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 Dems have demonstrated over and over again that they are not the party of "real national security." It seems that at every turn they try to undermine the War on Terror, through their words and deeds.
..."The Democrats are going to take back the security issue," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Ah yes, Chuckie is the chair of the DSCC.
That would be the committee with staffer Lauren B. Weiner, the woman who illegally used the Social Security number of U.S. senate candidate Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to impersonate him and pry into his financial records. Weiner went so far as to set up a fake email account under Steele's name to access his private information.
I consider that to be domestic spying and definitely unconstitutional. Did Weiner have a warrant? Steele is no terrorist, but he is a strong Republican candidate. I guess to the Dems Steele is as threatening as a terrorist, so Weiner conducted a warrantless search. Maybe it would be more fitting to call it fraudulent.
Talk about eroding civil liberties!
The Dems don't have the security issue. The Dems are appeasers. They are weak on national security.
I know this is painful, but think of what Carter did to the country. Think of what Clinton did. The Dems cannot be trusted to protect America. It's as simple as that.
...Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."
It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.
The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In other words, it's tired rhetoric. There's no plan from the Dems, only a history of making disastrous national security decisions.
Empty political rhetoric does not make Americans safer.
We don't need snake oil.
_______________________________
I saw this on the DNC website -- The Filthy Four.
After a weekend of buzzer beaters, blowouts, heartbreak, and euphoria, the "Unsweet Sixteen" has been whittled down to the "Filthy Four." There are no feel good cindarella stories in the field, just a collection of the corrupt. Here are the finalists and how they got there.
Read the details of the brackets.
It's so ugly and it's on the DNC site, not some wacko, Lefty blog.
The Dems are not the party of ideas.
They have a lot of anger. That's about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment