Will democrats lead the war on terror?

Appeasement is the democrats favorite tactic for dealing with terrorist threats.

I don't know why we should expect any different now.

 

It wouldn't be hard to do a better job than the Republicans did. They didn't do anything to protect America on 9/11. They had internal problems with the CIA, FBI, and Dept. of Homeland Security. The military's in-country generals had real issues with the "stay the course" plan but Bush refused to bend until after the election, a coincidence of course. I for one think new leadership will do a better job.

 

Time out! Clinton had 8 years and had bin Laden handed to him... and it is the Republicans who did nothing to protect America on 9/11?

Any reasonable person would not hold the Bush Administration responsible for the organizational and functional problems they inherited after less than 8 months in office.

There was no DHS in 2001... The laws that prevented the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies from working together and sharing data long preceded Bush and were instituted by Democrats... not Republicans.

Proof please?

Yeah their leaders are starting from interesting premises anyway.

Pelosi said that Iraq wasn't a war to be won but rather a situation to be solved... implicitly by withdrawing.

Kerry has implied that it was an inconvenient law enforcement problem.

Murtha has only one priority... withdrawal.

The only rational Dem idea has come from Biden and it has a snowballs chance in Hades of surviving his own party considering that they seem to think that Bush is the enemy rather than al Qaeda in Iraq.

These people will not do a better job unless a) they've been lying and have actually realize how dangerous this enemy is and have just been playing political opportunism or b) they wake up on Jan 22nd with a realistic understanding.

 

I agree!

I agree!

I agree!

 

Bush dropped the ball before 9/11, according to the FBI agents who were in charge of dealing with terrorism. After 9/11, by the estimate of his own intelligence people, he made us more vulnerable to terrorism.

How could anyone do a worse job?

At least Clinton took steps to protect us.

 

With what troops, they're all committed elsewhere?

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Words I thought I would never see together in one sentence.

 

Do you REALLY believe that the strongest military nation on earth couldn't scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked aircraft aimed at the two most important cities in our country? How far do you think Andrews Air Force Base is from the Pentagon? About 30 miles. And we couldn't get fighters in the air with an hour's notice in DC? As far as I can see the DHC is a useless bureaucracy. They proved their worth during and after Hurricane Katrina.

 

The Pelosi Doctrine:

Preemptive Surrender

 

Why not show some grit and answer some of Scott J's points? He's made some very compelling statements and stated some reasonably sound facts, that discredit your assertions.

 

Lead the war on terror? That's a laugh. They'll lead the march on your wallet, that's for sure, while marching on to their dream of a socialist state. Let's not forget that the "federal" government has no money.

 

Clinton ordered that rockets be fired at the bin-Laden location. Unfortunately they missed. Bush pulled half of our troops out of the hunt for him and even said at one point that we weren't that interested in capturing or killing him.

Once again, the DHS has shown itself to be useless. Bush was warned before 9/11 about an attack by civilian aircraft. What happened? The FBI agents who tried to warn America were fired or hushed up. Why?

You brought up the restrictions on law enforcement based on laws passed by Democrats. I don't accept that theory. Proof?

The Democrats didn't make the terrible blunder of invading Iraq without getting strong support from other countries. Bush's father warned him about going it alone. Now you seem to blame the situation on the Democrats and expect them to accept the original decision as sound. It was not. Let's see Bush get out of this situation with a victory all around. That means a stable Iraq, self-governing when we leave. After all, he declared victory back in 2003.

The Democrats will do a better job because they recognize the real danger, the terrorists, and won't go around starting wars for reasons they can't quite come up with.

 

YOUR turn.

 

Do you actually believe that Bush is a fiscal conservative? Remember when the argument during the 2000 election was what to do with the budget SURPLUS. Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore thanks to the free spending Republicans.

 

Remember, they think that the surplus was just "luck."

 

I'll ask you the same question you asked me. Why not show the strength and truth of your convictions and answer my post?

 

Democrats can prove they take terrorism seriously by making sure John Bolton passes, and becomes permanent U.N. Ambassador. He has proven very effective, and should be the guy.

But, in the spirit of partianship, you probably won't.