Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Say Bush Is Weak on Terrorism
NYTimes ^ | 5/18/03 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

Posted on 05/18/2003 5:22:19 AM PDT by 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."


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; 2004election; blather; blither; bs; democrats; desperate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Always Right
any=anyone
41 posted on 05/18/2003 6:52:21 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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

Bush will have us all speaking Spanish.

42 posted on 05/18/2003 6:56:34 AM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The Democrats are a source of domestic "terrorism" and, yes, we are weak on that front. Even as a minority party, they continue to obstruct, e.g., in the US Senate and the Chicken Ds in Texas.
43 posted on 05/18/2003 6:59:13 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Bush will have us all speaking Spanish.

I don't believe that will happen porque la gente subirá arriba y la pelea para lo que ellos creen en.

44 posted on 05/18/2003 7:03:38 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I can see a sense of complacency on this thread. Two weeks ago, Al Qaeda was defeated and in disarray. This just ahead of the slaughter in Riyaudi. Now they are given credit for all the attacks taking place in the world. I don't see any improvement in our border security and ports. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the US has solved all the problems with their anti-terrorism campaign. We could have an attack at any time. Forget about the Demos, we still need some more effort on our domestic defense policies.
45 posted on 05/18/2003 7:06:06 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
If that were true, then the dem-socialists are even weaker. Therefore, relatively speaking, Bush is strong on terrorism.
46 posted on 05/18/2003 7:24:54 AM PDT by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the US has solved all the problems with their anti-terrorism campaign. We could have an attack at any time. Forget about the Demos, we still need some more effort on our domestic defense policies.

While I agree with what you've said, I have to come back to the point of the thread, which is the Dems' criticism of what Bush has done so far, coupled with the implication that they would have done a better job, or that they would in the future if they gain power.

Think of CIC Gore, or one of the nine dwarfs currently announce, or Hitlery, the Dark Queen lurking in the wings.

47 posted on 05/18/2003 7:26:34 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (South-south-west, south, south-east, east....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Forget about the Demos, we still need some more effort on our domestic defense policies.

That statement is the essence of complacency. It is the Democrats who are hampering domestic defense policies because they are catering to thier constituancies that want open borders, more immigration, and money diverted from defense to addictive social programs. How could you make such a contradictory statement?

48 posted on 05/18/2003 7:27:21 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the US has solved all the problems with their anti-terrorism campaign. We could have an attack at any time. Forget about the Demos, we still need some more effort on our domestic defense policies.

Maybe, but do you think the Dems can score on this issue? Maybe when hell freezes over. You can always say we can do more, but Bush has been very aggressive on this issue and nobody will be able to attack Bush here.

49 posted on 05/18/2003 7:31:10 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Who has said all our problems are solved? That is an ongoing concern. Mock disasters were staged this week. We must all be vigilant.He said we had killed or captured half of AlQueda..not that we had defeated them.All the suicide bombs were against soft targets and low tech.We will never stamp out suicide bombers until the Wahabis stop funding and spreading hatred.I hope the Saudis are prepared for what is necessary.Perfect security is impossible.
50 posted on 05/18/2003 7:45:32 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Democrats Say Bush Is Weak on Terrorism

.....and Bill Clinton is a virgin.

51 posted on 05/18/2003 7:47:41 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul (The "Anti-War Leaders" Have Blood On Their Hands, look and you'll find, they are NOT anti-war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
If the democrats are so concerned about national security, Mr. Rove should suggest that we take care of the illegal immigrant problem immediately by shutting down the borders and yanking the due process rights of illegals and deporting them.

If the wonderful democrats are stupid enough to try to play this game, we can play it.

52 posted on 05/18/2003 7:51:59 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
.....and Bill Clinton is a virgin.

I didn't know that.

53 posted on 05/18/2003 7:54:37 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Tail gunner Joe

" Traitors...Democrats...the same thing in my book."

54 posted on 05/18/2003 7:55:24 AM PDT by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I haven't read the rest of the replies yet, but my gut instinct says the RATS are banking on another attack on the US within the US. And soon. We already have al Qaeda announcing that they're gonna hit the "snake's rear end." The question is where are they talking about. Are they talking waterways? We already know we're vulnerable there. There are many possibilities, and with God's help, we can stop them.

I cannot stand partisan politics when it comes to national security. The FEDS cannot do everything. I'm sure there is a lot of "chatter" that Senator Graham hears in intel briefings. Wonder what has him so concerned right now.
55 posted on 05/18/2003 7:56:16 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I suspect that the "union" members are saying this about Bush for one reason alone: if I am not mistaken, the Democrats fought tooth and nail to get UNION JOBS into Homeland Security.

They lost.
56 posted on 05/18/2003 8:40:45 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I find it strange that, after showing a complete inability to suggest anything contructive to do about the economy, health care, education (all dem pet projects) and sufficing to whine about them instead, the dems have come up with an even more silly a** idea. They whine about Republican strengths not being strong enough after spending the last 2 1/2 years saying that the Republicans strengths were "Bad Things" and would lead us done "The Wrong Road". Hell they are saying the war on terror has made us less safe and at the same time whining that we aren't doing enough to fight terror!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!

Please, Please, Please keep it up dems..Mental Implosion Imminent. :)

57 posted on 05/18/2003 10:38:41 AM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Whatever.
58 posted on 05/18/2003 12:30:27 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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

That ignores every tenet of warfare ever written. I suggest you read some military history and some political science.

59 posted on 05/18/2003 12:34:26 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I suggest you start reading current the news.
60 posted on 05/19/2003 3:35:06 AM PDT by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson