Republican Called Terrorism "Phony Issue" - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jviehe · #16 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

The simple fact is the President is primarily responsible for protecting this country from foreign threats. We were attacked several times by Al Qaeda during Clintons term, and he did very little. When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq.

History shows that Republicans have always been strong on defense, even in peace. It also shows that democrats care more about robbing the rich than security. Even now, when the threat of terrorism is in our face, they attempt to subvert anything the President does to try to deal with it.

timj219 · #17 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The simple fact is the President is primarily responsible for protecting this country from foreign threats. We were attacked several times by Al Qaeda during Clintons term, and he did very little. When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda or terrorism.

timj219 · #18 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebop

It is short-sighted to think this peak back into history does nothing but score political points. We can learn a lot from our past, and what one learns here:

1) Democrats were in tune to terrorism before Republicans.
2) Republicans did at one point question the practice of the expansion of wire-tapping when a Democratic president wanted it.

Going forward, we can apply what we learned to decisions we make for the future. The following is strictly my point of view using facts I learned.

Republicans do not protect this country any better than the Democrats can. In fact, one of the challenges in post-911 is the ability to see danger before it happens and move quickly to adapt. The Republicans' stonewalling and the generally lack of seriousness about a serious issue concern me. Now, you can argue that the recent actions from wiretapping to torturing mean the Reps are more alert and quicker to adapt now. But are they more alert or is it just partisan politics? I go with the later.

Comparing the the congress ten yrs ago to the one we have now: back then, the GOP stalled a terrorism measure that the president said is vital to pass quickly. In recent times, the Dems were pretty much in line with the Reps on the fight against terror (excpet for the torturing). Does this mean the GOP is more prone to play partisan politics with a Dem president than the other way around? Does this mean that a Dem majority congress would be fairer to Bush than what happened with a Rep majority congress to Clinton? Does this also translate that the Dems are more incline to work with the Reps than the other way around? For me, the answers are "yes" on all counts.

Also, this shows that priorities changed over time. Back then, the Reps couldn't give a hoot about terrorism. Now, they can't stop talking about it. Ten years from now, is it possible the Reps will be the one bragging about the advancement of stem cell research, gay marriage, and buget surplus? This should be a lesson to the Dems to never let go of important issues. Doing so risk letting the other side take credit for the hard work you did.

What this all boils down to is that neither party has a monopoly on cynical manipulation of public opinion. I think we all knew that already. The idea that one party is inherently any "fairer" to its opponent is laughable.

You are certainly right that republicans are using national security as a political tool. but you need to remember democrats are using civil rights in the same way. You yourself reminded us that during the clinton admin, republicans did the right thing by resisting degradation of our protection against government eavesdropping.

You are confusing tactics with principles. No holder of national office has any principles other than putting their own re-election above all other considerations.

eurovol · #19 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You're "fact" is hilarious! Both parties knew the dangers but just as the Dems try to block everything a Rep president does, the Reps try to block everything a Dem president does.

No, the Repugs block things because they think they know better. The Dems block things because they actually do know better.

eurovol · #20 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The simple fact is the President is primarily responsible for protecting this country from foreign threats. We were attacked several times by Al Qaeda during Clintons term, and he did very little. When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq.

History shows that Republicans have always been strong on defense, even in peace. It also shows that democrats care more about robbing the rich than security. Even now, when the threat of terrorism is in our face, they attempt to subvert anything the President does to try to deal with it.

History doesn't show that at all and you are a liar. Reagan cut and run in Lebanon and the Repugs lobbied for cutting and running in Somalia.

The WTC was taken down on Bush's watch. Clinton went after Bin Laden and the Repugs screamed wag the dog.

Bush has made us less safe and caused the death of 2600+ servicemen and women with lies and an illegal war.

The republican party is nothing but a bunch of lying ass wimpy chicken hawks.

ViolaLee · #21 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurovol

History doesn't show that at all and you are a liar. Reagan cut and run in Lebanon and the Repugs lobbied for cutting and running in Somalia.

The WTC was taken down on Bush's watch. Clinton went after Bin Laden and the Repugs screamed wag the dog.

Bush has made us less safe and caused the death of 2600+ servicemen and women with lies and an illegal war.

The republican party is nothing but a bunch of lying ass wimpy chicken hawks.

Isn't it amazing that Republicans pretend that Clinton cut and run from terrorist attacks?

It was Reagan who withdrew our troops from Lebanon after the marine barracks got blown up.

It was the Republican congress that pushed Clinton to withdraw from Somalia.

It was the Republicans that held Clinton back from going full force after terrorists.

Amazing how they re-write history.

jviehe · #22 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurovol

History doesn't show that at all and you are a liar. Reagan cut and run in Lebanon and the Repugs lobbied for cutting and running in Somalia.

The WTC was taken down on Bush's watch. Clinton went after Bin Laden and the Repugs screamed wag the dog.

Bush has made us less safe and caused the death of 2600+ servicemen and women with lies and an illegal war.

The republican party is nothing but a bunch of lying ass wimpy chicken hawks.

Read the 911 commission report. It is all in there.

Dormouse · #23 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I've had this discussion before, but it seems to me that this is unlikely in the current atmosphere of American society. There seems to be a basic desire for competition (think pro-sports, televised civil suits, competitive 'reality-tv' shows, etc). Basically, Americans want to see competition, and they want to see a winner and a loser (hopefully their horse is the former). The media, perceptive to this, does everything in its power to perpetuate this image. Not a lot of people are going to listen to a couple of politicians discuss (sometimes agreeing, sometimes not) the finer points of economic policy. But, millions will tune in to see a couple of politicians issuing polemics at one another over whether or not homosexuals can get married.

The thing is that real politics (as in the making of policy) eludes the body-politic in our country. The media isn't about to lose ratings, however, so they dumb it down, dress it up, and make it adversarial. This, in turn, causes partisanship of the highest order, since a significant portion of voters care about their party the same way they care about their baseball team - with utter loyalty and a lack of thinking.

I guess my point here is that uber-partisanship is a symptom of the fact that American politics (and politicians) are created to 'win' - not to solve problems.

And while everyone has their knickers in a knot over the idea of homosexuals getting married, the Administration is legalising torture, gutting environmental regulations and passing legislation designed to reward their supporters (i.e. Medicare Bill for Pharmaceuticals & HMO's).

Indeed, methinks that is the ultimate purpose of cultural wedge issues - to distract from the serious business.

goober · #24 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

The simple fact is the President is primarily responsible for protecting this country from foreign threats. We were attacked several times by Al Qaeda during Clintons term, and he did very little. When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq.

History shows that Republicans have always been strong on defense, even in peace. It also shows that democrats care more about robbing the rich than security. Even now, when the threat of terrorism is in our face, they attempt to subvert anything the President does to try to deal with it.

Notice the basic disconnect here.
"We were attacked several times by Al Qaeda during Clintons term, and he did very little. "

"When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq."

The idea that what happened during Clintons term, should have triggered a much bigger response from Clinton, but that it had nothing to do with Bush, that somehow when Bush took over, the slate was wiped clean, and Al Quaeda got fresh chance to behave. But when they did do something, Bush reacted quickly.

But the finding that it was Al Quaeda that attacked the Cole was made during Bush's term, and it was Bush that chose to do nothing, it was Bush that told the FBI to tone down the tracing of Al Quaeda money, because it was embarrassing to the Saudi Royal family. It was Bush that demoted Richard Clarke, and it was the Bush that put anti-terrorism on the back burner.

eurovol · #25 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Read the 911 commission report. It is all in there.

Liar. It is not in there. The 911 commission report does not say that RepubliCons are historically strong on defense. Stay focused and pay attention. Reagan cut and run and the Republicans lobbied to cut and run in Somalia. Bush did nothing against Bin Laden for the USS Cole incident because, as he said, it happened on Clinton's watch. Bush was warned about Bin Laden wanting to attack in the US and he stayed on vacation. Bush was warned about Katrina and he stayed on vacation. RepubliCons are liars that make us less safe with their ignorant rhetoric and stupid policies.

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
-- George Washington

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
-- Thomas Paine

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
-- Abraham Lincoln

doniston · #26 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

IN THE NEWS: So much for the latest terrorist threat. They have already decided that liquid explosives are not as dangerous as was thought,(or have realized that the Treat about blowing up planes with them was a non-starter.) the oficials have already relaxed the rules about bringing liquids on board planes.

Traveler · #27 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

No its what you guys state as the objective of fighting terror and maintaining civil liberties and rights.

Anyway what's the point in having a complete jam and slowdown at airports if it does no good, but nobody said the plot was a non starter or the threat, don't forget there are still some 15 men in British custody awaiting to be put on trial!

timj219 · #28 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No its what you guys state as the objective of fighting terror and maintaining civil liberties and rights.

Anyway what's the point in having a complete jam and slowdown at airports if it does no good, but nobody said the plot was a non starter or the threat, don't forget there are still some 15 men in British custody awaiting to be put on trial!

The plan to use "liquid explosives" does not have to be workable in order to be a crime. If these men had the intent to blow up those planes with jello they would still go to trial. The fact that jello will not explode is irrelevant as long as they thought it would.

doniston · #29 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006

jviehe;807309]The simple fact is the President is primarily responsible for protecting this country from foreign threats.
When we were attacked during Bushs term, he blew up Afghanistan and Iraq.

RESPONSE: That is quite true, but at least in the case of IRAQ. he was quite wrong.
-----

History shows that Republicans have always been strong on defense, even in peace.

RESPONSE: Yep, no arguement about that
---

It also shows that democrats care more about robbing the rich than security. Even now, when the threat of terrorism is in our face, they attempt to subvert anything the President does to try to deal with it.

RESPONSE: but this part of your post is flat partisian nonsense. and please, note, I am talking as an American, I am NOT a Democrat.