McCain Aid: "Terror attack would help McCain"

[OAKS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7470399.stm

Comments from associates of candidates aside, why do people continue to think Republicans are better on national security issues? We had 2 terror attacks on the U.S. while Bush was in office - 9/11 and the five anthrax murders. The person most experts agree on as the mastermind of 9/11 - Osama Bin Laden - is still at large. The Bush administration jumped out of Afghanistan before finishing the job & attacked Iraq. It has prolonged our stay in Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to regroup. It has created terrorist cells in Iraq where the weren't any before. And it has caused the growth of terror groups & terrorism throughout the world & has probably made us less safe in the process.

So I'll ask again, why do people think this is the proper course of action against terrorism and why do people want more of the same?

[StrykerFSU]

Questioned about Black's comments during a news conference, McCain said, "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91G30V00.html

The attacks on the USS Cole and the American Embassies in Africa, and the first attack on the WTC occurred under Bill Clinton. The terrorist network that conducted the attacks on 9/11 was formed and organized during the Clinton Administration.

[OAKS]

You're sidestepping the question. Why is McCain better at fighting terrorism ? Why do people think McCain is going to do such a better job than the Democrats when the policies he's supported have only exacerbated the issue and made us more vulnerable? Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the second one since 9/11, would just mean that Bush's (& McCain's) policies have failed again. It doesn't make sense that that would help McCain.

Also, al-Qaeda was actually formed during Reagan / Bush I in 1988. Osama first started denouncing Saudi Arabia's reliance on the U.S. military & the U.S. military presence (bases that some date back to the '50s, so partisan bickering doesn't really work in this instance) in Saudi Arabia 1990-92 before Clinton took office. U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades, not (D) or (R) people created this. Most of these policies became useless with the dissolution of the USSR and have bitten us in the butt.

[Ron Mexico]

Questioned about Black's comments during a news conference, McCain said, "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91G30V00.html

The attacks on the USS Cole and the American Embassies in Africa, and the first attack on the WTC occurred under Bill Clinton. The terrorist network that conducted the attacks on 9/11 was formed and organized during the Clinton Administration.

Al Quaeda was formed long before Clinton was in office.

Clinton tried to address the terrorist issues but some good old boys by the names of Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch blocked him at every turn. Clinton wanted simple things- like chemical markers put into explosives that would help track the buying and selling. Blocked.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Bill Clinton also tried to send military forces after Bin Laden but was blocked by Congress from doing so. Since he actually respected the Constitution, bin Laden remained at large. He says so himself right here on National TV and Chriswallacebot does nothing to refute it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoN403tXU4

Furthermore, the Bush administration blocked the release of over 11,000 pages of data, compiled by the Clinton administration regarding al Qaeda, to the 9/11 Commission thus preventing a full and thorough investigation of what was known and what wasn't known.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E4D81239F931A35757C0A9629C8B63

[StrykerFSU]

Not partisan bickering coming from me, I wasn't trying to answer the question. Just laying out a more complete list of al Qaeda attacks to remove the bias against Republicans that was built into the question.

The perceived strength of Republicans in national security issues may come because in the past 30 odd years or so the American public has watched Jimmy Carter bungle the Iran hostage situation, Ronald Reagan defeat Soviet Russia through heavy military spending, Bush I liberate Kuwait from Iraq, Bill Clinton prove ineffectual against al Qaeda and hesitant in the Balkans, and George W. Bush (for better or worse but with Congressional approval) respond to terrorist attacks as acts of war.

While bin Laden actually formed al Qaeda in 1988, much of its growth and undoubtedly all of the 9/11 planning and organization occurred during the 1990s.

Outside of deserting our responsibilities in Iraq, what do the Democrats propose? Unilateral action into Pakistan?

[Ron Mexico]

Not partisan bickering coming from me, I wasn't trying to answer the question. Just laying out a more complete list of al Qaeda attacks to remove the bias against Republicans that was built into the question.

The perceived strength of Republicans in national security issues may come because in the past 30 odd years or so the American public has watched Jimmy Carter bungle the Iran hostage situation, Ronald Reagan defeat Soviet Russia through heavy military spending, Bush I liberate Kuwait from Iraq, Bill Clinton prove ineffectual against al Qaeda and hesitant in the Balkans, and George W. Bush (for better or worse but with Congressional approval) respond to terrorist attacks as acts of war.

While bin Laden actually formed al Qaeda in 1988, much of its growth and undoubtedly all of the 9/11 planning and organization occurred during the 1990s.

Outside of deserting our responsibilities in Iraq, what do the Democrats propose? Unilateral action into Pakistan?

with "perceived" being the operative phrase

[Hugh Nunn]

Not partisan bickering coming from me, I wasn't trying to answer the question. Just laying out a more complete list of al Qaeda attacks to remove the bias against Republicans that was built into the question.

The perceived strength of Republicans in national security issues may come because in the past 30 odd years or so the American public has watched Jimmy Carter bungle the Iran hostage situation, Ronald Reagan defeat Soviet Russia through heavy military spending, Bush I liberate Kuwait from Iraq, Bill Clinton prove ineffectual against al Qaeda and hesitant in the Balkans, and George W. Bush (for better or worse but with Congressional approval) respond to terrorist attacks as acts of war.

While bin Laden actually formed al Qaeda in 1988, much of its growth and undoubtedly all of the 9/11 planning and organization occurred during the 1990s.

Outside of deserting our responsibilities in Iraq, what do the Democrats propose? Unilateral action into Pakistan?

Stryker is correct that the existence and pervasiveness of various terrorist networks and cells span administrations from both parties. Considering that the Dems have only held three POTUS term since the mid 70's one cannot honestly compare and contrast the effectiveness of the two.

If you are trying to find the President who has put us most in joepardy, it would have to be the current administration. President Bush had a complete mandate and an approval rating near 90% (if memory serves) during the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. We identified (to a certain extent) the source, and attacked the Taliban. Where the real trouble for this administration started (in terms of this discussion, not basic philosophy), was when they included Iraq in the discussion. The sham that was the marketing campaign to sell the war to the world began the erosion of public confidence and emboldened the administration to the point of hubris in their broad interpretations of executive priveledge and their dancing around the constitution. As a former soldier, the thought that we prosecuted this war on such shoddy intelligence, inuendo and disinformation is pathetic. The insurance money and suvivors benefits for the families of the dead and the VA benefits for the wounded are not a bandaid that makes up for the fact that this war was about personal agenda, moreso than fact and security.

Didn't mean to highjack the thread. Until the current administration, the GOP showed they were more willing to take direct action in response to Terrorism.....as allowed by the Constitution.

[Ron Mexico]

As a former soldier, the thought that we prosecuted this war on such shoddy intelligence, inuendo and disinformation is pathetic. The insurance money and suvivors benefits for the families of the dead and the VA benefits for the wounded are not a bandaid that makes up for the fact that this war was about personal agenda, moreso than fact and security.

As a former Marine infantryman, I share your sentiment wholeheartedly Hugh.

[KnoxVegas]

... Ronald Reagan defeat Soviet Russia through heavy military spending..

While this is half true, please remember that there were 30+ years that the Cold War was fought and Reagan was there at the end. The romantic notion that he single-handedly ended the Cold War is a falsehood.

As for Reagan and terrorists, even he realized that enough was enough in Beruit. Though he never did negotiate with terrorists. Or did he?

The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration. Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html

By applying the current conservative definition, looks like even Ronald Reagan was an appeaser.

[DanGenck]

Are Republicans not also viewed as tougher on national security because they will spend more on it and cut less from military budgets? Not sure if we can prove this statistically, but that has always been the perception.

[LaxRef]

Maybe I'm out of touch, but wouldn't most reasonable people agree that we are both more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack due to the Bush administration policies? So the question of why Republicans are perceived to be better on defense is a good one.

Of course, the American people are easily fooled. I recall one story about how the Republican campaign machines tried to point out how many tanks Reagan and Bush I had in their military budgets and how few Clinton did, when in fact Clinton and his advisers realized that tanks weren't going to be useful in a war with an enemy that doesn't have a country, military bases, etc.

[JW]

I think that it is more safe to say that Evil does not play politics. Evil does not discriminate. Evil does not like Clinton or Bush. Evil doesn't care who is in office or what is known about them. Evil only cares about producing evil. Evil begats Evil. Evil doesn't wait to see what a person's politics are before they decide to attack a country. Evil just attacks and does not weigh consequences of said attacks. Evil is not a republican or democratic issue, Evil is an issue of all people. To say that we are more prepared or less prepared to fight terrorists is difficult to say without sounding bias. i think it is more safe to say that Terrorism, like other organizations, have improved themselves.

bin Laden doesn't hate Bush or Clinton, he hates the United States of America.

I don't know who would be better at defending our country, or even if we are impervious to terrorist attacks. I think that it would be arrogant to think that we are the impenetrable land.

[Jac Coyne]

6 years. 9 months. 14 days.

God bless this country. And God bless the man who protects it.

[Beta]

I think that it is more safe to say that Evil does not play politics. Evil does not discriminate. Evil does not like Clinton or Bush. Evil doesn't care who is in office or what is known about them. Evil only cares about producing evil. Evil begats Evil. Evil doesn't wait to see what a person's politics are before they decide to attack a country. Evil just attacks and does not weigh consequences of said attacks. Evil is not a republican or democratic issue, Evil is an issue of all people.

That is very true.

People that murder/terrorize other people cannot be dealt with as normal-thinking people. We cannot say "hmm...how do terrorists feel about this...." because in all honesty....they are animals...and must be treated as such.

It may be my opinion...but any group that does those types of things are not mentally able to come back from insanity and integrate into civilization.

[Steno]

God bless America? God has not reason to bless the instigators of war, even of that war is perceived justly. Don't bring up Constantine's just war theory with me, man. Ditch the religion, follow Jesus.

Here is a nice little illustration of my point, among others:



Sure, the bible is fallible as it was God's word written by man (and I can find plenty of flaws in it - just look at the Right's selective reading of Leviticus) but if you want to talk God I can talk God.