Forgive me the all caps in the title. I think after you review this post, though, you will agree with me it’s justified. You see, this post compares the two parties on an issue that many people in America agree they differ radically, and I’m here to show them they are right — just not the way the think they are. The issue? National Security and specifically the issue of dealing with terrorist attacks.
Let’s examine one party first. You know, the party that loves America more than those other guys. The party of self-proclaimed Patriots. The party that supports the military 110%. The party that kept us safe from Saddam Hussein after Osama bin Laden attacked us.
In other words, The Republicans.
Republicans talk a lot about terrorist attacks against the United States — a whole lot. I could give you many, many examples but this one by Dick Cheney in 2004 at the Vice Presidential debate is undoubtedly the most iconic:
“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice,” Mr. Cheney told a crowd of 350 people in Des Moines, “because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”
They love to exploit mention September 11th every chance they get.
Republicans decided the best way to fight terrorism by Al Qaeda was to invade Iraq and depose Sadddam Hussein, a country and a regime that posed no threat to the United States, and did not shelter any Al Qaeda operatives – well at least prior to our occupation – on the false basis that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that he might use against us and/or hand over to Osama bin Laden, two men who personally detested each other and were, in fact enemies.
Then the Republicans’ leader, President Bush, the point man for this flawed policy, joked publicly about the failures and lies that led to the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq, because it’s just so damn funny:
(cont.)
They love photo ops with our military where they get to play dress-up.
The party of Yellow Ribbon Bumper Sticker Flag Wavers who always proclaim their support for the troops. Except, that is, when they cut benefits for “the troops” after they were no longer needed, delay delivery of benefits and vote against bills that would help veterans now.
…Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) … offered a measure that would offer emergency mortgage relief for members of the armed services. Republicans killed the bill on a party-line vote.
In February [2011], Republicans passed a budget bill that slashed $75 million that would have funded housing vouchers for homeless veterans…
…Even before they were in the majority, Republicans often voted against seemingly simple measures to help out members of the armed services over-stressed by nearly a decade of war.
In June 2009, a vast majority of Republicans voted against providing extra money to active duty members of the military subject to “stop-loss” orders—those who had their enlistments involuntarily extended…
…Republicans also initially opposed a new GI bill to provide a four-year college education to those who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan…
…At the height of the economic crisis, there was a bill in Congress that would have given a tax credit to businesses that hired unemployed veterans, as well as provide a $250 economic relief payment for any disabled veterans who would no doubt have an even harder time finding work amidst a wide recession. Republicans uniformly opposed the bill…
They love to talk tough about what they will do to terrorists. Remember this?
PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, “dead or alive” in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years.
“I want justice,” he said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. “And there’s an old poster out West that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’ “
But then Republicans lose focus and decide they have other “priorities” …
They like to claim they kept our country safe from terrorist attacks on “their watch” even if it isn’t actually true.
First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney’s watch than on any other leader’s watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the “seven and a half years” after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact.
There was absolutely no policy priority attributed to al-Qa’ida by the Cheney-Bush administration in the months before 9/11. Counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke’s position was downgraded, al-Qa’ida was put in the background so as to emphasize Iraq, and the policy priorities were lowering taxes, abrogating the ABM Treaty and building ballistic missile defenses.
Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11–much touted by Cheney–is due almost entirely to the nation’s having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to “the Cheney method of interrogation.”
Those troops have kept al-Qa’ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly “fixed” them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa’ida than the United States homeland. Testimony to that fact is clear: almost 5,000 American troops have died, more Americans than died on 9/11. […]
Third–and here comes the blistering fact–when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops “the Cheney method of interrogation and torture”, the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.
My investigations have revealed to me–vividly and clearly–that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering “the Cheney methods of interrogation”, simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.
Of course, they blame Democrats for being soft on terrorists, whenever they get the chance:
For example, back in 2002 they castigated a Vietnam War hero, Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the service of his country for, well I guess for being a Democrat:
If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, “for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”
and then they also questioned his courage, patriotism and support for fighting terrorism in this infamous campaign ad:
Naturally, Republicans continue to attack and blame Democrats, particularly our current President, for being “soft on terrorism, and for putting our country at risk, such as here, here and here (from an op-ed in The New York Daily News by Richard Clarke, dated February 6, 2010, which you should read in its entirety when you have the time):
Just last Thursday, House Republican leader John Boehner engaged in a classic version of this attack, saying the White House is “putting the American people at risk” and taking a “pre-Sept. 11” approach to fighting terrorism.
It has been hard to escape the conclusion that the goal of these critics is to discredit the President’s handling of terrorism for political advantage, whether or not the administration is actually doing a good job. Indeed, they seem to be posturing themselves simply so that if there is a successful terrorist attack on America, they can say “I told you Obama doesn’t know how to fight Al Qaeda.”
For some reason, however, while Republicans are quick to label non-violent protest movements and grass roots citizen boycotts of advertisers on the Rush Limbaugh Show as acts of terror, they seem to overlook the existence of the real and present danger posed by right wing terrorists.
Indeed, Republicans take great offense and scream and rant about how the Democrats are politicizing this (to them) non-existent right wing terrorist threat when anyone in government points out this danger to them:
“Has this homeland security secretary [Janet Napolitano] gone absolutely stark raving mad?” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “She needs to come before Congress. She needs to answer a few questions.”
On Thursday, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told Fox News that Napolitano must not understand “the disruption that she has caused” in some parts of the country. “I think the appropriate thing for her to do would be to step down,” he said.
A day earlier, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said, “Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired.”
Well, I confess that is hardly a comprehensive view of the Republican’s views and leadership on the issue of combating terrorism, but I can’t be as comprehensive as I would like. That would take a number of well researched and documented books, like this one, and this one, and this one … Well, you get the point.
I know this review of the republican policies and views toward terrorism is incomplete (heck I didn’t even mention their love of torture that didn’t work, their outing of a high level CIA operative, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib or their widespread surveillance of ordinary Americans), but now I must turn to the policies and actions and policies of the Democrats regarding terrorism.
Unfortunately I’ve probably over-taxed your patience as it is, so in the interest of keeping this post to a manageable level, let me simply provide you with this video of President Obama addressing the nation last year, which in one single moment in time defines the Democrats approach to the terrorism better than any lengthy exegesis by me. Perhaps you remember it.
