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

Skip to comments.

Democrats Turn On Bush Over Handling Of National Security
Independent (UK) ^ | 5-19-2003 | Andrew Gumbel

Posted on 05/18/2003 6:05:45 PM PDT by blam

Democrats turn on Bush over handling of national security

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
19 May 2003

Democratic contenders for next year's presidential election made their first spirited attack on George W Bush over the weekend on the issue widely regarded within the United States as his greatest strength – his handling of national security and the so-called "war on terrorism".

With bombs attributed to a revived al-Qa'ida wreaking havoc in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the candidates sensed a vulnerability in the White House strategy and hammered the president for failing to find Osama bin Laden, for failing to fund domestic security measures adequately, for fostering a climate of fear at home and for allowing himself to be distracted by the invasion of Iraq. "We have let al-Qa'ida off the hook," said Bob Graham, a Florida senator and a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose words carry particular weight.

"We had them on the ropes close to dismantlement, and then we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the war in Iraq. We let them regenerate," he said.

Several other candidates, including former governor Howard Dean of Vermont, former House minority leader Richard Gephardt, and North Carolina's Senator John Edwards said funding for the new Department of Homeland Security had been compromised by the President's obsession with tax cuts and cheap non-unionised labour.

Mr Gephardt said: "When you get to the bottom line, the money is not there. We are vulnerable to further attacks because this Administration has not done its job."

Senator Edwards said: "We should not cede this issue to a President and a party whose idea of homeland security is plastic wrap and duct tape."

Saturday's debate took place in Iowa, traditionally the first state to give its verdict on the Democratic presidential candidates in a party caucus, and featured seven of the nine declared contenders. In a sign, perhaps, of modestly increased confidence in an otherwise battered and demoralised Democratic Party, the seven avoided petty partisan attacks on each other, reserving their fire exclusively for the current incumbent of the White House.

Mr Dean said: "This President has ruled by making us fear each other. We've lost a lot in the past two and a half years."

Carol Moseley Braun, the former senator of Illinois, focused on Mr Bush's tax cuts: "This crowd is into fighting the needy and helping the greedy."

Mr Dean agreed with her, saying: "The President's prescription for everything is take two tax cuts and call me in the morning."

Such sentiments went down well with the union-heavy crowd in Des Moines. A long struggle still lies ahead, however, in convincing a scared and largely trusting electorate that the man in the White House, with his talk of war and crisis without end, is part of the problem and needs to be replaced.

Two prominent candidates did not attend the Iowa debate. The former vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a conservative Democrat whose campaign has suffered because he supports much of Mr Bush's foreign policy agenda, was observing the Sabbath but sent a videotaped message saying he was from the "victorious wing" of the party.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, widely regarded as the initial frontrunner, was in New Hampshire, meanwhile. He, like much of his party until now, has seemed reluctant to attack Mr Bush too hard on issues of national security for fear of alienating voters.

The new-found vigour of the Democrats in Iowa went only so far, however. Like all presidential candidates since the Cold War, they avoided discussing the United States' role in the world. There was no mention of Mr Bush's diplomatic isolationism or policies of pre-emptive defence or drastically increased military budgets.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; bushdoctrineunfold; democrats; handling; national; security

1 posted on 05/18/2003 6:05:45 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
Democraps also eat their young. Big deal.
2 posted on 05/18/2003 6:08:24 PM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
"Turn" implies they were with him for awhile.
3 posted on 05/18/2003 6:08:57 PM PDT by jwalburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toddst
The wonderful liberals have found their campaign issue. they'll be hammering this idiocy for the next year.
4 posted on 05/18/2003 6:10:58 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
This President has ruled by making us fear each other

I don't think Bush created the fear. He rules by will of the people and the fear he is helping to alleve. The fear came from here, lest they forget:


5 posted on 05/18/2003 6:14:43 PM PDT by jwalburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I wasn't aware that the U.S. president was personally responsible for insuring security in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. I'll have to reread the Constitution again to refresh my memory. Or maybe the Democratic presidential candidates should try reading it for the first time.
6 posted on 05/18/2003 6:18:52 PM PDT by HHFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
""""hammered the president for failing to find Osama bin Laden""""

Their boy Clinton had eight years, and was even handed ObL and refused to take him into custody.

Does that mean we get to Clinton for what happened on 9/11?
7 posted on 05/18/2003 6:26:18 PM PDT by just me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
The wonderful liberals have found their campaign issue. they'll be hammering this idiocy for the next year.

10-4. Of course, what else have they got? Nothing.

8 posted on 05/18/2003 6:26:38 PM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HHFi
"I wasn't aware that the U.S. president was personally responsible for insuring security in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. "

My first thought also. The Democrats are attacking his strength and don't have a chance on this one. I know life-long Democrats who can't praise Bush enough on national security.

9 posted on 05/18/2003 6:27:17 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blam
These rats are terrible hypocrits.

All of what led up to 9-11 was the slickmeisters lack of attention to National Security.

Now the rats focus is on federalizing and uniionizing those who are in charge of security.

Nothing else matters unless is more pork for Byrd and his other leftists.

Go George, go, and start vetoing the pork.

10 posted on 05/18/2003 6:27:20 PM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
"We had them on the ropes close to dismantlement, and then we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the war in Iraq. We let them regenerate," he said.

Right. Do like the demonRats did in Bosnia. Leave the troops there till the end of time.
11 posted on 05/18/2003 6:28:48 PM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Please explain how the Patriot Act is the "will of the people"
12 posted on 05/18/2003 6:40:50 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; Dog Gone; Grampa Dave; Sabertooth; NormsRevenge; Gritty; SierraWasp; ..
The Democrats are getting desperate and somewhat crazy!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



13 posted on 05/18/2003 6:43:05 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Carol Moseley Braun, the former senator of Illinois, focused on Mr Bush's tax cuts: "This crowd is into fighting the needy and helping the greedy."

Hey, she must have graduated from the Jesse Jackson School of Political Jargon Rhymes!

14 posted on 05/18/2003 6:48:03 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blam
Seems that the DemocRATS have placed their bets on the terrorists.
15 posted on 05/18/2003 7:24:34 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Soddom has left the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Im not so sure this is the tack the Dems should be taking...can you imagine algore at the helm on the morning of 9/11? Democrats are good for two things; taxing the hell out of us, and hating America. They are no good at security or military matters, as they dont want to offend anyone....
16 posted on 05/18/2003 7:26:59 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
And just what would Dems have done differently?
17 posted on 05/18/2003 7:29:07 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for national--and personal--suicide!
18 posted on 05/18/2003 7:30:32 PM PDT by Savage Beast ("Liberalism" is decadence. It has nothing to do with liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer
Exactly, if anything needs to be done, they need to CUT THEIR SPENDING!!

Give me my money! The tax cuts aren't spending, it's giving us our money back!

Cut the %*^$ out of the budget, and FREE OUR MONEY!

The democrats are grasping at issues, and when they all come out and use the same party "line" and have nothing original, all the better for everyone! I want to hear what people think, shine the light on the roaches.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox.
Thanks.

19 posted on 05/18/2003 7:37:46 PM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
The May 2003 Democratic Party Schreech:

"You got out of Afganistan, what about poor Afganistan!

Now, get out of Iraq you empire building nation, you."
20 posted on 05/18/2003 7:41:35 PM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
Gee, I'm not aware of any attacks on US soil since 911. And Bush pitched a shutout in Afganistan and Iraq. I'm feeling pretty secure.
21 posted on 05/18/2003 8:07:00 PM PDT by killermosquito (I'm really not a war monger. I'm really not. Really, I'm not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Don't underestimate pure audaciousness when the networks won't call you on it. Remember Clintoon lameting those who resorted to "the politics of personal destruction"? When the facts are against them, they try to turn truth on its head.

It is an old trick of the Devil, accuse your enemy of what you yourself are guilty of. Are they weak on security? Then accuse him of it over and over.
22 posted on 05/18/2003 8:09:34 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Democrat leaders are in no position to gripe about President Bush's efforts to secure and defend our country against terrorist scum attacks as they haven't lifted one finger to unite with the President or to offer any solutions other than complain and demean.

They certainly never complained when Clinton was faced with such attacks. As I recall, Clinton couldn't be bothered with terrorism and it was not even close to being a priority in his Administration.

I do know however, that screwing and chasing Monica in the Oval Office with cigars was.

23 posted on 05/18/2003 8:12:03 PM PDT by harpo11 (Godspeed Brave USA Troops! My Families Thoughts and Prayers are Being Sent to YOU! "Job Well Done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Let me see now, before the bombings last week, they attacked him for focusing too much on security, and not enough on the economy. Now, after the bombings that no one on earth can prevent, they attack him for not focusing enough on security. Do they realize how ridiculous and out of touch with reality this makes them sound?
24 posted on 05/18/2003 8:15:01 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
"Democrats Turn On Bush Over Handling Of National Security"

Uh huh. Yup. That's the ticket. Yeesh!

Democrats lecturing anyone on issues of national security is like a hairdresser of florist teaching combat pistol-craft. I think not, girls.
25 posted on 05/18/2003 8:18:24 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HHFi
"Or maybe the Democratic presidential candidates should try reading it for the first time."

Can't. They burned their copies. Back in the sixties.

It was a phase...

26 posted on 05/18/2003 8:21:22 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
They sure are desperate; it's hard to go against someone who is perceived as trustworthy with strong national leadership in the war on terror. The Democrats are the ones opposed to Homeland Security by putting caveats on the funds which couldn't be put to use in many cases because half of the funding is to finance other causes such as new facilities for the Smithsonian Institution or pay for fighting forest fires and implementing election reform. So now it is GW's fault for not totally eradicating al-Qa'ida which he has always maintained that the war in terror isn't over yet.

27 posted on 05/18/2003 8:30:38 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blam
Stupid cheap shots.
28 posted on 05/18/2003 8:37:17 PM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The Democrats have next to nothing. No ideas, no candidate with a clue, no hope.

Right now, the odds would probably favor a 50-state sweep.

Except for one thing. The one thing the Democrats have on their side: The mainstream media.

If it were not for the media, the Democrats would be wiped out -- erased from the electoral map.

29 posted on 05/18/2003 8:47:34 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"If it were not for the media, the Democrats would be wiped out -- erased from the electoral map."

It's happening slowly anyway. The lefties are on the run.

30 posted on 05/18/2003 9:08:05 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: blam
Bush had nothing to do with it!

The lead demon-crat : blow job Bubba said the attacks were the result of our PAST history and treatment of the poor misunderstood mass murderers aka Muslims!

Since when have demon-crats been concerned over national security and big brother activities?


31 posted on 05/18/2003 10:02:04 PM PDT by Kay Soze (France helped Osama Bin Laden kill 3,000 US citizens in New York on Sept 11,2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
, as they dont want to offend anyone..

Well then they are failing, cause they sure as shootin' offend me! :-)

32 posted on 05/18/2003 10:04:15 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: blam
Andrew Gumbel does his version of the Jeffery Blair writing style in the loser the Independent (UK).
33 posted on 05/18/2003 10:33:11 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Has The NY Slimes ever printed the truth in your life time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Meanwhile the reality of President Bush's popularity is creating nightmares for the 9 misfits who are the best the Rats have to offer for 2004.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913884/posts

WASHINGTON — President Bush has a good shot at winning over those states he lost in the controversial 2000 presidential election.


Pollsters say the country's close political balance has shifted at the top of the ticket and Bush is showing surprising strength in many states that will be crucial for Democrats in 2004.
34 posted on 05/18/2003 10:40:53 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Has The NY Slimes ever printed the truth in your life time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913932/posts

Southern wind lifts Bush, buffets Democrats
Orlando Sentinel ^ | 5/18/03 | Mark Silva


Posted on 05/18/2003 10:22 PM PDT by LdSentinal


CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- The South, it seems, is a little different from the rest of America.

In Alabama, a judge rebuked for posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom grew so popular that he won election as chief justice of the state's Supreme Court. He erected a granite monument to the commandments in his new rotunda.

In Georgia, the Democrats running for president will compete on a primary-election ballot March 2 alongside a referendum deciding which flag the state will fly -- an old one framed with the marquee of the Confederacy, or a new, politically corrected one.

Here in the Carolinas, voters have not backed a Democrat for the presidency since Jimmy Carter of Georgia in 1976.
35 posted on 05/18/2003 10:44:24 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Has The NY Slimes ever printed the truth in your life time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913930/posts

Graham, Edwards Put Senate Democrats in Bind

Posted on 05/18/2003 10:18 PM PDT by LdSentinal


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sens. John Edwards and Bob Graham may be busy running for president, but their fellow Democrats back home are in limbo as they anxiously await word on the pair's Senate re-election plans for next year.

Edwards, a freshman from North Carolina, and Graham, a three-term veteran from Florida, have left open the option of running for the Senate again next year if their presidential campaigns do not take off.

The uncertainty has left the Senate races in both states in suspended animation and complicated Democratic hopes of recapturing a Senate majority next year.

"It has put everybody who wants to get in the race in a precarious position," said Florida state Rep. Walter Campbell, who is considering a run for Graham's U.S. Senate seat but expects Graham to eventually wind up back in the Senate race.

"Everybody is on hold, but everybody needs to start making these decisions soon," Campbell said.
36 posted on 05/18/2003 10:46:56 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Has The NY Slimes ever printed the truth in your life time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
In Alabama, a judge rebuked for posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom grew so popular that he won election as chief justice of the state's Supreme Court. He erected a granite monument to the commandments in his new rotunda.

That's terrific!

37 posted on 05/18/2003 11:13:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Since 9/11, there has been a gradual erosion of what the Rats have set up in this country via rat controlled legislatures and rats pretending to be judges.

Their mentally ill outbursts against our president, our military and other conservatives is not playing very well in America's streets.

Now, one of their major weapons in the cultural war, the NY Slimes has shot itself in the foot with the Jayson Blair ordeal.

The Rat control over the media has loosen with the strength of Fox News, Drudge, conservative talk radio and conservative internet sites like Free Republic.

In spite of these changes, the arrogance of rats in politics continue to harm them with the moderate voters.
38 posted on 05/19/2003 6:11:27 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Has The NY Slimes ever printed the truth in your life time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blam
Yeah, like any of those weenies have a clue!!

Ol' JFK hasn't constituency, so his Viet Nam "experience" ain't worth a damn since he's not a leader to brgin with.

39 posted on 05/19/2003 9:08:15 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Right now, the odds would probably favor a 50-state sweep. Except for one thing. The one thing the Democrats have on their side: The mainstream media.

Uh, two things!

You forgot to mention "voter fraud". It holds the balance of power in a number of states.

40 posted on 05/19/2003 9:26:16 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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