Democrats Say Bush Is Weak on Terrorism

NYTimes ^ | 5/18/03 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

[RJCogburn]

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.

The candidates, appearing at a labor forum here this morning, repeatedly castigated Mr. Bush, their presumptive opponent in November 2004, for what the White House has portrayed as one of Mr. Bush's chief strengths: his record in battling terrorism abroad and protecting Americans at home.

The criticisms came in a week when terrorists killed dozens of people in bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, attacks that officials have said bear the trademark of Al Qaeda. The bombings have stirred concerns about the terrorist group's persistence, even after many of its leaders have been detained or killed. They have also reignited questions about whether the war on Iraq might have inflamed suicidal terrorists.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been among the most persistently critical members of Congress of Mr. Bush's antiterror policies before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, said that the White House had neglected the threat of Al Qaeda and instead focused on Baghdad.

"We have let Al Qaeda off the hook," Mr. Graham said, as members of the municipal workers union here rose in applause. "We had them on the ropes close to dismantlement, and then we we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the war in Iraq. We let them regenerate."

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, called the war in Iraq a diversion that had not left the United States any safer. "We have a president who talks tough on homeland security but is strangling the city and the towns and not giving them the money that is necessary to protect them," Dr. Dean said.

Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said, "We are vulnerable to future attacks because this administration has not done its job and has not increased our ability to have homeland security."

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 remarks by the candidates came at a forum here organized by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to press the Democrats to talk about issues of concern to the union. It was an early step in their courtship of a union whose endorsement is sought by all the Democratic candidates.

The candidates used the forum in front of 1,000 union members here to emphasize their commitment to health care coverage and increasing financing to state and local governments staggering under federal budget cuts and a tough economy.

But the spirited attack on Mr. Bush's terrorist credentials served as a reminder of how prominent that issue would be in the election, no matter how much Democrats talk about domestic issues. It united the Democrats on the stage, and drew cheers from the audience and shouts of "hear, hear!" from the union's leader, Gerald W. McEntee.

Municipal workers have watched as state governments, struggling with the mounting cost of terrorist protection and with falling revenues, have cut their budgets. The Democrats repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for failing to allocate promised money to help defray the security costs required by federal laws enacted since Sept. 11, 2001.

At one point, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina noted that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, a Republican, had been forced to push through deep layoffs in his municipal work force, an observation that drew shouts of angry recognition from the crowd.

"The Republicans are planning to have their convention in New York City to showcase the leadership of George Bush," Mr. Edwards said. "I think it's a great place to showcase the leadership of George Bush." Mr. Bush, in a radio address today that was taped before the forum, said the Saudi bombings "provide a stark reminder that the war on terror continues," but he added, "Our government is taking unprecedented measures to defend the homeland."

The meeting was nothing like the debate in South Carolina two weeks ago, when the candidates argued with one another about the war in Iraq and other issues. This time, only seven of the nine announced Democrats attended. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut was observing the Jewish Sabbath, while Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was delivering a commencement address in New Hampshire.

The other two candidates who were here were Carol Moseley Braun, the former senator from Illinois, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio.

The subject turned to terrorism in response to a question by Joseph Conzo, an emergency medical technician with New York City's fire department, who was dispatched to the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Upon his introduction, first the crowd and then the candidates rose to their feet in tribute to the officer.

"I was one of the lucky ones; I survived," Mr. Conzo said.

Some Democrats have argued that Mr. Bush is vulnerable on the issue of domestic terrorism. They have attacked the White House for withholding financing for emergency services, and for failing to set up a system to block the smuggling of nuclear or biological weapons through the nation's porous port system.

And even as Mr. Bush was portraying the victory in Baghdad as a defeat of terrorism, some of the Democrats here were raising questions about it.

"Mr. Bush, the question you have not answered is, where is bin Laden?" proclaimed the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York. "You keep going after everything but who went after us. Mr. Bush will not be, in a Sharpton administration, the head of missing persons. He can't find bin Laden. We don't know if Hussein is living or dead. And we can't find the weapons of mass destruction."

[ThreePuttinDude]

It's surprising that Florida and Massive2shits, the 2 states that were
the most directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks seem to be screaming the loudest.

What gives John "Big Ketchup" Kerry,(Logan International) and Bobby Jo Graham,(Venice Flight Schools) the sense of morallity that they can condemn anyone??

[Vinnie]

Let's ask them some specific questions of the dims.

Will you close the borders, North and South?

Will you round up the millions of illegals in this Country?

Will you round up all single ME males under 40 yrs. of age and deport them? Especially looking at the foreign student program.A start on getting rid of terrorists.

Will you encourage citizen involvement and arm them?

Oh, I must have misunderstood your motive for bringing up the subject .

[Brilliant]

This begs the obvious question: What would these guys have done differently to get bin Laden and Saddam? Moreover, why have they not suggested any different policy to date, other than their opposition to the Iraq War? And how would not going to war with Iraq have captured Osama and Saddam sooner?

[section9]

Bush's defense is brilliant, however. It's a long war, and Al Qaeda is hitting soft targets. We can't defend every soft target, and terrorist organizations are hard to take apart.

Al Qaeda is weaker than it was, and is, in all probability, operating out of divided counsel. AQ's specialty has always been spectacular mass casualty attacks. When the Casablanca bombings occured, I first thought that these were locals or Algerians. Car bombings didn't seem to be AQ's specialty. Then, another poster reminded me of Bali, and it occured to me that Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, and other targets have two things in common: they are soft and they were easy to do.

The age of the AQ spectacular may have passed into history. However, car bombings and suicide strap bombings may become the order of the day.

Naturally, the Dems have no freaking idea about what to do and how to counter them. The only criticisms I have of the Administration are tactical in nature: the way infantry has been used in Afghanistan has been spotty, at best. If any of you haven't read Steel My Soldier's Hearts by David Hackworth, I would encourage you to do so. Using infantry companies in small units, setting up ambushes, pretending to leave, then leaving a small ambush team behind when the Jihadis come to collect their dead, are only a few of the tactics perfected in Vietnam that could be used here. However, they must be used on a massive scale.

My second criticism has to do with the Northwestern Frontier of Pakistan. There is no law in that part of the world. We have to go in there in a big way, but in a very covert way, and some AQ have to start waking up with slit throats in the morning.

AQ may have overreached in the Saudi bombing, and may pay a political price as some of their fundamentalist patrons begin to wonder if their backing of AQ was wise.

As to the Democrats, their ignorance is there for all to see.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Just mythoughts]

This Homeland Security agenda is an "Ace of Spades" for these lying low life liberals.

Let's not forget where the "CONCEPT" of this agency started.

In the study done by HART/RUDMAN regarding terrorism/security release prior to 9/11, where warnings and vulnerabilities of national security were looked at and recommendations were given to increase national security.

I have read and heard on the tube that Newt came up with the idea of HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCY. President Bush initially rejected the idea and then the lying low life liberals took hold of it, pushing it with the demand of "special status for unions".

President Bush rejected giving "special status for unions" and traveled the country speaking about needing a Homeland Security Agency without "special status for unions" and won back the Senate with those speeches.

This was a peeling away of the lying low life liberal power and they set about using Homeland Security Agency as pay back. Right in the middle of Lott's babbeling prior to him stepping down there was a "LIBERAL" (I don't remember who he or they were) on Fox news, I think on a Monday morning when everyone else was talking LOTT, that said the liberals would be using Homeland Security Funding against President Bush.

Since January 2003, one of Hillary's shrills, in her dragon voice has been about Homeland Security Funding.

What did in fact happen with Congress appropriating funds for the Homeland Security Agency, which the President publicly complained about, was the funding was being sent directly out to individual groups firefighters/police UNIONS, by individual Senators/ Hillary bragged about sending money for gas masks to someone in New York City.

Congress, (who knows what the Republicans were doing when they allowed this to happen) itself did not fund this Homeland Security Agency at the top thereby taking the President or Tom Ridge ability to get money to "first responders" nation wide.

The dirty little secret of these lying low life liberals is that for their plan to make maximun affect they really need another terrorist attack to give their lies credibility, that President Bush has not funded Homeland Security and therefore not really concerned about terrorism at home.

Hillary and bj are still seething that President Bush took out Saddam because it was so displeasing to their fellow travelers of the world under the UN, Russia, France and Germany. Reason that bjclinton kept telling us that we should "follow Blix" and that all N. Korea wanted was "RESPECT".

Don't forget one of the most insane speeches given was by "Tiny Tom" to a group of state, local, and country convention "UNION" itching about funding under the HOMELAND Security Agency.

[monocle]

Being a critic is easy. Offering concrete solution is a wholly different matter.

[not-an-ostrich]

I'll bet they want to toughen up the Patriot Act!

[Vinomori]

.......They are right about two things: we have not found bin Laden or Hussein. There is no way Bush or Republicans can spin that positively, and there is no harm at all in Democrats or anyone else turning up the heat on those two issues. The truth is, we have been totally incompetent at finding those two men. Anyone disagree? The only argument I have heard from our side is this: "yeah, but it's HARD to do!" That's not a very brave argument. One of the many reasons it is hard is what happened to HUMINT under Bush I and Clinton (especially). Our intelligence forces softened and were almost emasculated. We're building back up as fast as we can pedal. But we're still absolutely and totally incompetent at finding bin Laden and Hussein, and in this one category we are losers and there's no other way to spin it. (Never mind that with Gore in we wouldn't even be looking...we'd be celebrating Islam Understanding Week in America.)

[MEG33]

They do have a solution..hire more union /government workers and let the Dems pay off constituants.|;^ )

[Rome2000]

The remarks by the candidates came at a forum here organized by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to press the Democrats to talk about issues of concern to the union.

It's us against selfish socialist SOB trade unionist liars, perverts, and thieves.

They are as dangerous to the nation as the ragheads, and will be defeated as well.

AFSCME and the Democrats can keep their goddamned grubby hands out of our pockets and act like Americans instead of Soviets.

Come 2004, they will be slapped down worse than in 2002.

[MEG33]

constituents Oops

[ThreePuttinDude]

"As to the Democrats, their ignorance is there for all to see"

Agreed 100%, thanks Chris

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is quite obvious that the DEMS have no ideas.

You're so right! It must be wonderful to be able to attack the President and his administration ~~~ with no responsibility to add an alternative to the debate.

What cowards these DemocRATS are!

[Always Right]

Yep, make terrorism the campaign issue. I can't think of a more brilliant Democratic strategy!

[Rome2000]

The truth is, we have been totally incompetent at finding those two men.

Just like Truman was an incompetent because we didn't find Hitler?.

Only desperate political enemies of the President try to make the case that finding them is of any consequence.

The fact is that their ability to attack the USA has been neutralized, no thanks to the democrats.

And real Americans know it.

[MrNatural]

...we have not found bin Laden or Hussein...

And we never found Jimmy Hoffa either, or Judge Crater.

[Brett66]

This is why Bush will be reelected. The dems will self destruct.

[Always Right]

.......They are right about two things: we have not found bin Laden or Hussein. There is no way Bush or Republicans can spin that positively, and there is no harm at all in Democrats or anyone else turning up the heat on those two issues. The truth is, we have been totally incompetent at finding those two men. Anyone disagree?

I would say the electorate overwhelmingly disagrees and thinks Bush is doing an outstanding job fighting terrorism. The public doesn't trust the Dems on national defense, and if they wish to make terrorism the campaign issue, they will go down in flames. Bush's weakness in the publics eye is the economy, not defense. Bush has toppled the terroist governments in Iraq and Afganistan, any challeging Bush as weak will not win. Period end of discussion.

[Consort]

It was the Torricelli Principle that hurt the CIA, etc. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and let him go and Clinton let Hussein throw out the weapons inspectors and Clinton used the military but didn't replenish it..... We toppled two governments since 9/11 under Bush — not too shabby in my book. Under Gore we would still be negotiating with them.