Posted on 09/08/2006 9:59:08 AM PDT by Loud Mime
Senate Dems push back on national security
Senate Democrats scored a major political victory Thursday when the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment allocating money for a new unit dedicated to finding Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Although Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) called it a political maneuver to attract voters in November, as the manager of the 2007 defense appropriations bill, he urged his fellow GOP senators to vote for the amendment, which adds $200 million in emergency funds for a unit dedicated to hunting down Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Stevens vowed, however, to change the provision during conference negotiations with the House.
By forcing a vote on such an amendment, the Senate Democrats aim to draw attention to the fact that the Bush administration is directing too much attention to the war in Iraq and too little to trying to find bin Laden. Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) were outraged when they discovered that the CIA had shut down its unit dedicated to hunting down bin Laden.
The move in the Senate echoed a statement made by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, who said on the House floor Wednesday that the war on terrorism originated with the U.S. goal to eliminate the Al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan as well as the Taliban government.
“The attack by our military in the ongoing conflict was a war of necessity,” Skelton said. “Our military forces, along with allied and NATO forces, remain fighting the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban, with the assistance of the Afghan National Army.”
This is not a war against bin Laden. This is a war against Terror.
These Democrats are as useless as tits on a bull. Jeesh...
Bingo. Dems apparently are doomed to forever not get it.
they just want to catch bin Laden so that they can give him civil rights and due process.
Once we have him, they will criticize our cruel treatment of him.
I suppose since Osama isn't head of some state, we aren't talking targetted assassination, which the US used to be against. What I do get is the sense the War on Terror consists largely of flailing about fiddling with a microscope while the telescope rusts in the basement.
Since Bush became president they have tried to stop everything he's wanted. They even talked down to Condi Rice as if she were some underling not deserving of that job. Now they are saying that we should not fight terrorists. We should just look for bin Laden.
Now they're misapplying the logic on the War on Terror. They want people to believe that fighting terrorists is wrong; that we should instead be looking for 9-11 culprits and ignore the Islamic rage that we'll have to deal with here, if not stopped there.
Their foresight is terrible. They look for voters with the same thought processes.
I guess were supposed to treat it like Kerry's law enforcement approach. Maybe he'd take on one swift boat mission in afghanistan and personnaly put the cuffs on OBL.
The Dems are like little kids. They don't see the big picture and can't focus on more than one thing at a time. Just like Clinton, focusing on BJs instead of terrorism even though there were 5 attacks or more on his watch.
So many sheeple who don't ask: what is their plan? They vote Dem because that keeps the entitlements coming.
The democrats can play the anti-war card all they want, and here's why: They know that this nation will be defended by its military and the true patriots, no matter what the democrats do.
If there is another terror attack, they'll blame it on Bush, not on those who gave the terrorists havens with their politicization of the war.
What "fact" is that?
So the Democrats want to spend money on finding Bin Laden.
OK. Let's say Bin Laden is sitting in a cafe in Tehran, eating his curried goat and drinking a nice yogurt shake.
He is reading his subscribed copy of the London times and thinking about hmm... maybe sending some youngsters into London to blow themselves up during the opening of the new play "Billary Clinton."
So the Democrats suggest doing what? Sending soldiers into Iran? Sending police into Iran? Sending a secret hit squad into Iran?
I'm not getting their point.
"“The attack by our military in the ongoing conflict was a war of necessity,” Skelton said. “Our military forces, along with allied and NATO forces, remain fighting the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban, with the assistance of the Afghan National Army.”"
And if Bin Laden is in Pakistan genius? What is the plan?>
The Democrats must know where bin Laden is. Hmmm...maybe they do. After all, Osama's speeches sound like they were written by the DNC. Maybe they are!
Their only point is to complain about Bush and lead their own believers to think that they have the better course of action.
Taking out Bret Farve does not shut down the NFL. Taking out bin Laden will not stop terrorism.
The Dems use Bin Laden as their boogey man. They keep chanting Tora Bora and get bin laden in Afganistan. One thing this shows me is they do not learn from history. One can only look to what happened to the USSR when they committed too many resources in Afganistan. We're not so stupid to chase our tail in some God-forsaken country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.