Dems are the party of National Security?

[Ghost of BiB]

Dem platform?

 

But Republicans, anticipating the Democratic attack, were already circulating their own counteroffensive on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, said he had just obtained a copy of the Democrats' plan and added, "It's taken them all this time to figure out what we've been doing for a long time

 

Dem Tactics

 

In almost every issue in the Reid memo, Democratic lawmakers are called upon to criticize the president for not spending enough federal dollars.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Dem platform?

 

Dem Tactics

645353[/snapback]

 

"They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn."

 

But...but...but...we need a deadline!

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm trying to find the actual six page statement.

[KRC]

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.

 

Nice to see that they need an election to show that they are concerned with national security. National security itself is not an important enough reason to do it, it needs to coincide with an election. Pathetic.

 

 

Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.

 

"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.

 

Isn't this the same party that is blasting Bush for using photo-ops? Nice to see yet again that there is no difference between the parties.

[Scraps]

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.

 

I'm all for increasing the size of the special forces, but that has been happening for a few years under the current administration. Under Carter the Dems were responsible for the "Halloween Massacre". Clinton tied up the Directorate of Operations in so much red tape that it was practically impossible to recruit agents. He also canceled at least 6 operations to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives at the last minute, after the CIA had allready put boots on the ground in Afghanistan in the 1990s. And now we are supposed to believe that the Dems are going to embrace and build up the CIA?

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Nice to see that they need an election to show that they are concerned with national security. National security itself is not an important enough reason to do it, it needs to coincide with an election. Pathetic.

Isn't this the same party that is blasting Bush for using photo-ops? Nice to see yet again that there is no difference between the parties.

645396[/snapback]

 

 

Isn't there a material difference between these two acts in that Republicans have questioned the patriotism of the Democratic party and its and support of the military (both directly and tacitly)?

[KRC]

Isn't there a material difference between these two acts in that Republicans have questioned the patriotism of the Democratic party and its and support of the military (both directly and tacitly)?

645420[/snapback]

 

How is staging blatantly fake press conferences going to solve that? Putting a flag up at a press conference does nothing for national security.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm all for increasing the size of the special forces, but that has been happening for a few years under the current administration. Under Carter the Dems were responsible for the "Halloween Massacre".  Clinton  tied up the Directorate of Operations in so much red tape that it was practically impossible to recruit agents.  He also canceled at least 6 operations to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives at the last minute, after the CIA had allready put boots on the ground in Afghanistan in the 1990s.  And now we are supposed to believe that the Dems are going to embrace and build up the CIA?

645411[/snapback]

 

I'm trying to hold off until I can read the actual paper, but on the surface it sounds like nothing more than election tactics, which is sad. As for CIA, it usually takes several years to develop a network of HUMINT operatives, and that is currently being worked on. It can take a year or more just to try to develop a sense of the reliability of a source for a single incident. I don't have a problem with increasing the tempo of the funding for radiation detectors. I don't know why the admin hasn't done so yet.

 

It also takes years to develop skilled SOF's. More a matter of experience than some training thing. As for funding, I believe Brown recently went to Congress and got an extra a couple of billion for Counter Terror ops. Not positive.

 

The "Get Bin Laden" rhetoric sort of warns me it's a PR campaign and little more.

[PastaJoe]

First the Democrats are criticized for not offering a plan. Then they offer a plan and are criticized for playing politics.

 

If you don't like it, don't for for them, but at least they're offering positions for the voters to compare against what Republicans have and haven't done.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

First the Democrats are criticized for not offering a plan.  Then they offer a plan and are criticized for playing politics. 

 

If you don't like it, don't for for them, but at least they're offering positions for the voters to compare against what Republicans have and haven't done.

645427[/snapback]

 

I don't see a plan. I see rhetoric.

 

Oh, wait. This is the Democratic Party. They're the same thing.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

How is staging blatantly fake press conferences going to solve that? Putting a flag up at a press conference does nothing for national security.

645422[/snapback]

 

 

Agreed, but you need actual power to influence national security. As a minority party, what else would you have them do at this stage of the campaign?

 

As for the tactics, I have absolutely no problem with Democrats asserting that they are also patriotic and supportive of the military.

[Scraps]

First the Democrats are criticized for not offering a plan.  Then they offer a plan and are criticized for playing politics. 

 

If you don't like it, don't for for them, but at least they're offering positions for the voters to compare against what Republicans have and haven't done.

645427[/snapback]

 

How am I supposed to tell the difference between them and the Republicans based on what has been presented? The Republicans have been increasing the size of the special forces, they have been hiring more spies into the CIA, they aren't offering a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. What is the difference?

[SilverNRed]

First the Democrats are criticized for not offering a plan.  Then they offer a plan and are criticized for playing politics. 

645427[/snapback]

This is the plan???? Wow.....

[Ghost of BiB]

Agreed, but you need actual power to influence national security.  As a minority party, what else would you have them do at this stage of the campaign?

 

As for the tactics, I have absolutely no problem with Democrats asserting that they are also patriotic and supportive of the military.

645443[/snapback]

 

Neither do I. My concern (based on past performance) is that they are going to peddle something to the voters that on the surface will sound nice, sound bite by soundbite, but in reality make things worse instead of better. I'm in the National Security business, and actually breathed a sigh of relief when Kerry lost.

 

I've also seen enough out of both sides of Congress over the last few years to have serious concerns of their understanding, period. But, a major difference I see between the average democrat vs. anything promulgated by the administration is simply to attack, without judgingg the merits of anything. As Scraps (not the most Bush supporting minded poster here) mentioned, some of these things are already being done - what the dems will do is put some sort of spin to it and try to make it theirs.

 

Just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. This is all about the power, and they are willing to screw with National Security to get it.

[Rubes]

What I fail to understand is why anyone here sees this election-year partisan pandering to the voting public is any different than what either party has done in the past, is doing right now, and will always do in the future. I mean, seriously. How would this be any different if the parties were reversed?

[KRC]

What I fail to understand is why anyone here sees this election-year partisan pandering to the voting public is any different than what either party has done in the past, is doing right now, and will always do in the future. I mean, seriously. How would this be any different if the parties were reversed?

645473[/snapback]

 

Didn't I say that? There is no difference between the parties.

[KRC]

Agreed, but you need actual power to influence national security.  As a minority party, what else would you have them do at this stage of the campaign?

 

As for the tactics, I have absolutely no problem with Democrats asserting that they are also patriotic and supportive of the military.

645443[/snapback]

 

If your plan consists of waving the flag, saying, "See I am patriotic and support the troops. See my flag?" then how do you expect to regain power? Minority parties become the majority by providing an actual solution. Flag waving is not a solution.

 

I also am not buying into this, "well, we are not the majority so we can accomplish nothing" crap. The Reps do not have a super majority. All the Dems need is to get one or two Republicans and the Reps can do nothing. The reaon why the Dems are accomplishing nothing right now is the fact that they are not providing any solutions for any Reps to cling to. Where is the Dem plan for Social Security? Oh, it is do nothing. What about Medicare? <crickets> Welfare Reform? <crickets> Now, they think that by waving a flag that they will all of a sudden impress on people that they are strong on National Security? Please...

[KRC]

First the Democrats are criticized for not offering a plan.  Then they offer a plan and are criticized for playing politics. 

 

If you don't like it, don't for for them, but at least they're offering positions for the voters to compare against what Republicans have and haven't done.

645427[/snapback]

 

Putting flags in the background of press conferences. Talk about substance.

[Ghost of BiB]

In this case, I'm concerned with substance. While many here disagree with current security policy and actions, there are some. I've not seen this particular document yet, but I have reviewed for comment some democratic initiated proposals regarding security and defense. Many of those ultimately boiled down to "voter feel goods" in terms of Homeland Defense priorities. If the same ball of wax is going to get peddled, there is at least a chance that the results ain't going to be that good.

 

Some of the problem here, is that sensible actions can look absolutely horrible to the average American. The dems know that and will take advantage. The Admin knows it too, which is part of why they try real hard to never talk about it, because they'd get skewered.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As a minority party, what else would you have them do at this stage of the campaign?

645443[/snapback]

 

Put together a coherent campaign platform based on reasoned plans that they could implement once they become the majority party?

 

Oh, no, wait...that would be hard. Sloganeering is easier.