Details? Details? Don't Need No Stinkin' Details

Democrats Detail Security Policy
Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues

By Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 30, 2006; Page A12

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

The new strategy, which comes after months of deliberations and several false starts, aims to neutralize the advantage Republicans have held on national security and terrorism issues, that Democrats acknowledge were critical in the GOP's midterm gains in 2002 and in Bush's reelection victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

Flanked by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the administration has done since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Declaring that the administration's "dangerous incompetence has made America less safe," Reid said, "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver."

Republicans immediately attacked the Democratic plan, with Vice President Cheney arguing that Democrats' "behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do."

Many of the items in the Democratic statement echo themes Kerry advanced in the 2004 presidential campaign, but party strategists believe that they are now in position to capitalize on public disenchantment with the war in Iraq and with declining confidence in Bush as a wartime leader.

Among the proposals in the "Real Security" plan: eliminate bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network, implement in full the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and work to make 2006 a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.

On terrorism, the Democrats call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds by "combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive."

Democrats have been badly divided over Iraq. The new strategy urges Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security, recommends "responsible redeployment" of U.S. forces without specifying a timetable and blames the administration for poor planning and manipulating prewar intelligence.

The statement contains language -- voiced by Pelosi, Reid and others yesterday -- that the Democrats' security agenda will be both "tough and smart" in contrast to the "dangerous incompetence" the Bush administration has shown -- language that has been tested by the Democrats in anticipation of the fall campaign.

Albright decried the Bush administration's "rank incompetence" on such issues as the Iraq war and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Albright called for a security plan based on "facts not fantasy."

Ummm...this is the same Madeleine Albright who was primarily responsible for the UN's failure to act in Rwanda, who actively prevented peacekeepers from moving in to stop the mass killing of about 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, and who played the key role in blocking any strong action by the UN, adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place,isn't it? The same Madeleine Albright who led us into the war in Yugoslavia in response to non-existent massacres and mass rapes, on the side of the Muslims? The same Muslims we are now fighting?

Ya wanna talk about "dangerous incompetence?" I give you eight years of the Clinton Administration. Because of the neglect of the Clinton Administration, Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "We are now going to eliminate, trust us, honest.") was allowed to flee to Afghanistan from Somalia. The same Administration that was offered Osama bin Laden (the same bin Laden they say "Honest, this time we're going to get him.") on a silver platter and refused to act.

Democrats have honed the art of showering the public with "Glowing Ambiguities" to a fine art. All of their proposals are long on words and short on facts and methods.

Telling the American people "Trust us, we're going to thus and so, but we'll tell you how after you elect us (and after we figure out how), especially when you have been actively working against American security and interests for the past five years is not going to carry much weight with the American voters.

What possible evidence can the Democrats offer that this is the time to trust them with national security. They have worked against national security for the past 40 years. They have worked against the military for the past 40 years. They would have had us surrender to the Soviet Union had the American people not had the wisdom to elect Ronald Reagan. Their neglect during the Clinton years was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but now they ask for our trust.

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Full Story: Democrats, Hawks-In Their Imaginations

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below