Dems are the party of National Security?

[Wacka]

First step? The dems have had 5 years to get a plan together. Ever since 1/20/2001 , if Bush proposes something they say it is bad and offer nothing in return.

[Ghost of BiB]

The disservice here, is to the American people. Whether this kind of stuff is written by the Democrats, or the Republicans. It amounts to a disinformation campaign, and when rebuttal time rolls around, you will probably see more of the same from the other side.

 

Democrats Call for a Comprehensive Strategy to Win the Global War on Terror. In contrast to the Bush Administration's piecemeal approach, Democrats have advanced a comprehensive U.S. strategy to win the war on international terrorism. This strategy calls for increasing Army special operations forces, curbing terrorist financing, preventing the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and advancing U.S. interests through diplomacy and development in the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Democrats have introduced measures to increase foreign language expertise to meet the challenges of international terrorism and have called for the establishment of a commission to develop a set of metrics for measuring success and assessing U.S. efforts in the war on terror. 

 

Most of this sounds like it was lifted directly from the current National Strategy to Combat Terrorism. It's on the web, it can be Googled. There is more than one plan in effect for adressing these issues, and they are comprehensively integrated throughout the government. They are being addressed, and quite successfully in most cases. A difficulty in explaining things coherently is the level of classification attached to the actual operational plans and actions being undertaken. I'm particularly tickled by the advancement of US interests line, though. There already are metrics for success. Conceptual and operational plans are not written without them.

 

Democrats Advance Measures to Secure Loose Nuclear Materials. Democrats have introduced legislation to intercept materials used for nuclear weapons, requesting increased funding for innovative foreign military financing assistance and for strengthening coordination efforts to nations participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Democrats also have called on the Administration to undertake all efforts necessary to security 100 percent of former USSR weapons-grade nuclear materials by 2008. [Cooperative Proliferation and Interdiction and Conventional Threat Reduction Act (S. 1949)]

 

Once again, all already being done. What they don't mention is that PSI is a Bush initiative, invented by and promoted by this administration. PSI is a relatively new program, but so far has been pretty successful. And, once again, much of this sounds like it was lifted from current policy documents. Behind the scenes, a lot of money and effort has gone into training and equipping foreign customs control agencies, border controls, law enforcement and military activities in order to network their counter-proliferation efforts into a comprehensive global system. We regularly participate in PSI related exercises with our foreign partners. As far as 2008, goes - As this is the MEAT document of the two, I'd be interested in seeing how they plan to do that. There is plenty of money and effort being placed not only on securing the nuclear materials, but also de-milling chemical and biological stockpiles, including delivery systems. A lot of the problems here are the Russians themselves. A lot of money hasn't been spent yet because of bureaucratic crap within the Russian ministries.

 

Democrats Seek to Strengthen International Nonproliferation Regime; Confront North Korea and Iranian Nuclear Programs. Democrats have introduced measures to provide increased funds for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, to step up efforts to secure nuclear materials and counter the threat of nuclear proliferation. Democrats have called on President Bush to empower Administration negotiators to resolve the North Korea nuclear threat through active participation in the Six Party Talks. They have commissioned an unclassified report to examine the size and nature of North Korea's WMD program.

 

Sort of the same as above. I'll defer to KRC on the negotiating details. As for what I highlighted...what? For one thing, there's about 500 of them now, check out Global Security Org. For another thing, what good is that going to do anybody.

 

But, that's a start. I guess we could bandwidth this to death.

 

I just don't think most of this is representative of the realities of what is really going on, but America doesn't have much choice but to swallow what they are given. A lot of sounds nice until someone starts to really think about it, and looks beneath at the details behind the proclamations.

[KRC]

Democrats have called on President Bush to empower Administration negotiators to resolve the North Korea nuclear threat through active participation in the Six Party Talks.

Sort of the same as above. I'll defer to KRC on the negotiating details.

646695[/snapback]

 

The negotiators already have that power.

 

Basically, a lot of this is the Democrats agreeing with the Bush Administration approach to doing things (and wanting to continue what Bush is doing), while at the same time saying Bush Bad.

[Ghost of BiB]

Sort of the same as above. I'll defer to KRC on the negotiating details.

646695[/snapback]

 

The negotiators already have that power.

 

Basically, a lot of this is the Democrats agreeing with the Bush Administration approach to doing things (and wanting to continue what Bush is doing), while at the same time saying Bush Bad.

646706[/snapback]

 

That's the part I don't get, from their tactical standpoint. It's not going to be difficult to show that they are embracing current Bush administration policies in many areas. So, what's the line? "We can do it better?"

[KRC]

That's the part I don't get, from their tactical standpoint. It's not going to be difficult to show that they are embracing current Bush administration policies in many areas. So, what's the line? "We can do it better?"

646708[/snapback]

 

More like, "we can't do it better, but we can make sure it costs more." I guess they are hoping that nobody picks up on that. It takes too long to explain all of the things that the Bush administration is currently doing and how it matches this "plan." You can't boil it down into a soundbite, so it will go unnoticed. Anything that does arise has plenty of time to be forgotten by the mid-term elections.

 

That could answer the question by a couple of posters as to "why now?" It gives the voting public plenty of time to forget that their "plan" is nothing more than doing what is currently being done the same way it is currently being done, but spending more money in the process. Wave a few flags, everyone feels all warm and fuzzy and will pull the blue lever for more of the same, just higher tax bills.

[Ghost of BiB]

More like, "we can't do it better, but we can make sure it costs more." I guess they are hoping that nobody picks up on that. It takes too long to explain all of the things that the Bush administration is currently doing and how it matches this "plan." You can't boil it down into a soundbite, so it will go unnoticed. Anything that does arise has plenty of time to be forgotten by the mid-term elections.

 

That could answer the question by a couple of posters as to "why now?" It gives the voting public plenty of time to forget that their "plan" is nothing more than doing what is currently being done the same way it is currently being done, but spending more money in the process. Wave a few flags, everyone feels all warm and fuzzy and will pull the blue lever for more of the same, just higher tax bills.

646718[/snapback]

 

I see some areas that really bug me, especially with regards to Homeland Security. I predicted fire trucks and public health clinics, they have been riding that horse for some time. Lots of Democrat style special interest is hidden in that. But all in all, at least they aren't promoting wholesale dismantling of what is working.

[erynthered]

More like, "we can't do it better, but we can make sure it costs more." I guess they are hoping that nobody picks up on that. It takes too long to explain all of the things that the Bush administration is currently doing and how it matches this "plan." You can't boil it down into a soundbite, so it will go unnoticed. Anything that does arise has plenty of time to be forgotten by the mid-term elections.

 

That could answer the question by a couple of posters as to "why now?" It gives the voting public plenty of time to forget that their "plan" is nothing more than doing what is currently being done the same way it is currently being done, but spending more money in the process. Wave a few flags, everyone feels all warm and fuzzy and will pull the blue lever for more of the same, just higher tax bills.

646718[/snapback]

 

 

 

I wonder what ever happened to John Kerry's plan?

[Ghost of BiB]

I wonder what ever happened to John Kerry's plan?

646727[/snapback]

 

Apparantly, waited for Bush to write one for him.

[KRC]

I wonder what ever happened to John Kerry's plan?

646727[/snapback]

 

It will re-emerge in the run up to the 2008 primaries.

[KRC]

But all in all, at least they aren't promoting wholesale dismantling of what is working.

646726[/snapback]

 

One of the only positives I see with this. Things like successes with PSI rarely make it to the news reports. The international support we have received for PSI and all of the countries working together to make it a success is something that should be discussed. You rarely hear about it. Obviously, you cannot reveal details of successful interdictions for security reasons, but there is no reason not to say that you have been successful.

[Ghost of BiB]

One of the only positives I see with this. Things like successes with PSI rarely make it to the news reports. The international support we have received for PSI and all of the countries working together to make it a success is something that should be discussed. You rarely hear about it. Obviously, you cannot reveal details of successful interdictions for security reasons, but there is no reason not to say that you have been successful.

646756[/snapback]

 

Where's Tom and his marketing post?

 

The Republicans pretty well sat back and let the Democrats steal their own successes and claim them as their own new ideas.

 

Much of what I see "new" in the areas I follow, at least, are simply undoable. Or, pointless. Either someone within the democratic party hasn't done their homework, or as you suggest they are banking everyone will forget about any details, but remember the "message".

[KRC]

The Republicans pretty well sat back and let the Democrats steal their own successes and claim them as their own new ideas.

 

Now is the time for the Republicans to step up and say, "Ummm...excuse me...but that stuff is already being done."

 

 

Much of what I see "new" in the areas I follow, at least, are simply undoable. Or, pointless.

 

I thought that, as well. Whatever crack they are smoking when they came up with it, they need to share it with the rest of us.

 

 

Either someone within the democratic party hasn't done their homework, or as you suggest they are banking everyone will forget about any details, but remember the "message".

646778[/snapback]

 

...or a combination of both.

[Ghost of BiB]

The "spend spend spend" thing is something, too. How many billions for first responders and other related issues? Just from my own perspective and opinion, that has been one of my bigger issues with what little I have seen regarding Homeland Defense and Security coming from the Democrats. The fact that the "Fireman Guy" is one of their keynote personnel reaffirms to me that a lot of their intent is to dump money "into firetrucks" (figuratively speaking) and call that increased security.

 

Just for clarification, my position is that if one does a proper job in prosecuting an effective global counter campaign, one doesn't need billions of federal dollars for "fire trucks". Not money intelligently spent addressing the problem. "Fire Trucks" are for when you fail. The emphasis here is in responding to attack, rather than defending against one. As an American, especially one living in the ground zero significance of the Nation's Capitol, that mind set doesn't make me feel very secure.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Where's Tom and his marketing post?

 

The Republicans pretty well sat back and let the Democrats steal their own successes and claim them as their own new ideas.

 

Much of what I see "new" in the areas I follow, at least, are simply undoable. Or, pointless. Either someone within the democratic party hasn't done their homework, or as you suggest they are banking everyone will forget about any details, but remember the "message".

646778[/snapback]

LOL, PSI was started at least during Clinton, and probably under Bush I... it may have had a Republican name change, but I remember that stuff being discussed before Bush II.

 

But you are right it is a relatively positive P.R. routine that Dems so infrequently get to engage in. It is ironic, if as you state, not being an expert on foreign affair details, that Dems are taking credit for so called Republican programs.

 

I would be careful though on the facts, a lot of these ideas over the years have been generated by low level but smart knowledgeable staffers on both sides of the aisle only to have leadership, which ever is in power claim credit. It would be a pain to trace, you would have to go back to hearing and subcommittee markup transcripts.

 

I love the things like paying our troops more you argue would only cost more money...whatever....kinda like JStar? I am aware that that darn thing, JStar, crosses party lines, but at least our troops could be housed state side in more then ghetto style apartments. Granted that is only a moral booster, but heck Bush has said he supports our troops and in the same sentence issues a budget that cuts their benefits. The armored issue you guys hacked out on another post, not touching with a ten foot...

 

Still, if you agree with so much of it, why so upset? Yeh you are right a lot of what Dems and Reps say on foreign affairs is remarkably similar. Problem is isolationists and internationalists choose their parties for other reasons than just these and it splits them. No wonder why neither party has a consistent coherent mesage to choose from.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The "spend spend spend" thing is something, too. How many billions for first responders and other related issues? Just from my own perspective and opinion, that has been one of my bigger issues with what little I have seen regarding Homeland Defense and Security coming from the Democrats. The fact that the "Fireman Guy" is one of their keynote personnel reaffirms to me that a lot of their intent is to dump money "into firetrucks" (figuratively speaking) and call that increased security.

 

Just for clarification, my position is that if one does a proper job in prosecuting an effective global counter campaign, one doesn't need billions of federal dollars for "fire trucks". Not money intelligently spent addressing the problem. "Fire Trucks" are for when you fail. The emphasis here is in responding to attack, rather than defending against one. As an American, especially one living in the ground zero significance of the Nation's Capitol, that mind set doesn't make me feel very secure.

646823[/snapback]

I understand that rational, problem is everyone is telling us not if but when. But after the Katrina debacle what would it matter. I know...I just strengthened your arguement, darn. But maybe....maybe something has been learned since then about emergency situations, not....that is why I moved to the mountains of Massachusetts.

 

You will be happy to know, if there is an emergency as feared, you will have one massive budget cut. They will close down roads and bicycle or foot is the only way to leave DC, thus eliminating huge chuncks of the beaurcracy, kinda like an earthquake in LA. Of course the leadership of Congress will be protected, but that is another issue....or is it?

[Ghost of BiB]

I didn't say anything against paying the troops more money. I would suspect, since that is what they led in with, that the Dems are going out whole hog for the military vote.

 

What upsets me is the obvious rhetoric and misinterpretation, at least in some areas I'm a little familiar with. You have also carefully worked in the next phase of a possible dem startegy I hadn't considered:

 

"Yeah, they ARE doing that stuff...but we thought of it first!" SEE? Here's a Clinton Memo.

[Ghost of BiB]

I understand that rational, problem is everyone is telling us not if but when. But after the Katrina debacle what would it matter.  I know...I just strengthened your arguement, darn.  But maybe....maybe something has been learned since then about emergency situations, not....that is why I moved to the mountains of Massachusetts.

 

You will be happy to know, if there is an emergency as feared, you will have one massive budget cut.  They will close down roads and bicycle or foot is the only way to leave DC, thus eliminating huge chuncks of the beaurcracy, kinda like an earthquake in LA.  Of course the leadership of Congress will be protected, but that is another issue....or is it?

646844[/snapback]

 

Once again, risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis. The sidebar here, is that increasing a bunch of Federal spending to urban areas will invariably result in programs and facilities that can have dual purpose when they aren't being used to respond to the "inevitable attack". If the Dems want a bunch of Federally funded public health clinics in the inner urban, call it that. If city governments want more fire trucks, manage your city as to be able to afford them. More fire trucks would have mattered not one bit in Manhattan September 11th, 2001. Except to maybe get more firemen killed.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I didn't say anything against paying the troops more money. I would suspect, since that is what they led in with, that the Dems are going out whole hog for the military vote.

 

What upsets me is the obvious rhetoric and misinterpretation, at least in some areas I'm a little familiar with. You have also carefully worked in the next phase of a possible dem startegy I hadn't considered:

 

"Yeah, they ARE doing that stuff...but we thought of it first!" SEE? Here's a Clinton Memo.

646847[/snapback]

LOL, yeh been a building frustration for much of the Bush Admin, hence why the Dems have not been making a lot of leg suggestions lately, the other side did a lot of reading the leg we submitted cherry picking what they liked and calling it their own, a lot of times taking 95% of the same language.

 

Remember the Republicans have accused us of over legislating things...and the Republicans can't right a decent piece of leg even when their ideas are good, so why not high jack good leg text from the folks that are the most effective at writing it. Can't blame them, pissed our lawyers off to no ends. So the statement is not wholly inaccurate and explains a lot of Bush's P.R. problem.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

More fire trucks would have mattered not one bit in Manhattan September 11th, 2001. Except to maybe get more firemen killed.

646858[/snapback]

 

More to the point, more firetrucks in Manhattan on 9/11/01 would not have stopped 9/11. Which illustrates the difference between disaster response and national security.

 

The fact that the Democratic Party as a whole can't seem to fathom that difference easily demonstrates how much they're NOT the party of National Security.

[Ghost of BiB]

LOL, yeh been a building frustration for much of the Bush Admin, hence why the Dems have not been making a lot of leg suggestions lately, the other side did a lot of reading the leg we submitted cherry picking what they liked and calling it their own, a lot of times taking 95% of the same language.

 

Remember the Republicans have accused us of over legislating things...and the Republicans can't right a decent piece of leg even when their ideas are good, so why not high jack good leg text from the folks that are the most effective at writing it.  Can't blame them, pissed our lawyers off to no ends.  So the statement is not wholly inaccurate and explains a lot of Bush's P.R. problem.

646861[/snapback]

 

Yup, not hard to see where you worked for several years, and who you worked for.