Democrats Say Bush Is Weak on Terrorism

NYTimes ^ | 5/18/03 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

[RJCogburn]

The election's a ways away,and Bush could loose, particularly if the economy is poor, but I just don't see this particular approach by the dems working.

[Piquaboy]

Bush can do nothing right according to the Socialist Party candidates.

[chainsaw]

The democrats are in self destruct mode. Pay no attention to them. They will eventually dry up and go away.

[ClearCase_guy]

This seems like a brilliant strategy. But, if this fails, maybe the Democrats should criticize President Bush for not landing on aircraft carriers enough.

Dumb as donkeys.

[MEG33]

Yes ,it is possible Bush could lose. I have been shocked before.The Dems are trying to build up their weakest area.Americans trust Republicans more on security.

[ez]

That's just what we need in the war on terror...the LBJ approach.

No thanks.

[roderick]

"We have let Al Qaeda off the hook," Mr. Graham said, as members of the municipal workers union here rose in applause.

So union members were pleased at letting Al Qaeda off the hook?

Most Senate Democrats voted against giving Bush the authority to deal with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Now they are complaining that Bush does not do enough?

The 'rat party is schizo, demanding safety and security but unwilling to take the politcal risks to achieve them.

[DoctorMichael]

I didn't read the article...........I merely clicked on the Title to see what set of idiots would publish an article with this title.............

Ahhhhhhhh.............the new yawk times. Figures.

[Libloather]

The union audience was sympathetic to the Democrats' contentions, because its members would benefit if, as many Democrats have recommended, spending for security measures such as police, firefighting, rescue squads and medical care were increased more rapidly than the administration has recommended.

The RATS are trying to spin homeland security into financial security.

And the Times is more than willing to help...

[visagoth]

The minute he gets 'strong' on terrorism, especially domestic, they will scream CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION!

It is quite obvious that the DEMS have no ideas. They continue the same old rants ad nauseum.

[nightdriver]

"Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today on his handling of the war on terrorism, questioning the administration's failure to find Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein..."

Never mind that it was their boy, X42, that refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden's head on a platter and who also turned a bunch of FALN terrorists loose to terrorize another day.

[johnfl61]

A RAT paper the NY Slime who embraced Communism and terrorism support the Idiot Socialist Bush Haters who want to destroy this country.

[KC_Conspirator]

If Algore or any other of these democrat bozos were in charge we would all be speaking arabic.

[Jorge]

The biggest mistake the Dems could make is to run on this issue for 2004. It will keep the focus on Bush's strongest points.
And unless the economy gets worse than it is, I don't think most people will feel it's safe to vote for a Democrat.

[HighWheeler]

"Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today on his handling of the war on terrorism, questioning the administration's failure to find Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserting that Mr. Bush had failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks."

Perhaps these RATS should point out what XXX42 did in 8 years as an model example of how to counter terrorism, prevent its spread, and protect our nation. That explanation should only take one short breath: "Nothing".

[verity]

The democrats are weak on integrity and the NY Times is weak on objective reporting.

Ergo.................

[mtbopfuyn]

I didn't read the article either as I couldn't stop laughing at the title. Yep, I harken back to the good old days when Clinton/Gore were tough on terrorists, NOT.

[Gorzaloon]

So, we fight a war a year after 9-11, and Bush is soft on terrorism.

For the previous eight years, we blindly fire a few cruise missiles once in a while and pay off the North Koreans, etc.

I should know better then to even read, let alone respond to, posts quoted from the NYT, but sometimes it is irresistable.

What an utterly loathsome collection of hateful, hypocritical partisans.

[Diogenesis]

LEADING DEMOCRATS S&C% UP TO THOSE WHO HAVE MURDERED AMERICANS

[wayoverontheright]

Dumb as donkeys.

This attack on Bush will backfire because it is an attack not only on Bush, but on the 90% or so who were for the war on terror, and the 70% for the war on Iraq, and they're not likely to admit they were wrong.

Most of us who were for these wars are amazed at what has been accomplished, and we realize that it's still the first quarter of the game, and we're way ahead.

These two most recent attacks have not been celebrated by the "Arab street" in the same manner as 9-11. The only ones ululating are the democrats.