« Views of McCain | Main | Tax war, get less? »

August 13, 2008

9/11 happened on GOP’s watch

Whenever I hear people exclaim: “at least George Bush has kept us safe from the terrorists” I can’t help but wonder: Do they remember who our president was on Sept. 11, 2001? I think the Bush administration has not taken enough of the blame for ignoring the repeated warnings by Richard Clarke and the intelligence community that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States.

Despite their total failure to prevent the horrific attacks of that day, Republicans continue to claim that theirs is the party that will “keep us safe” and warn us that if a Democrat is elected we might get “hit again.” I find such fear tactics objectionable, even a little amusing, in light of the fact that the worst attack in the history of our country occurred on “their watch.”

The assertion that the Democratic Party is weak on national security is just another myth perpetrated by Republicans meant to frighten the American people. It has no basis in fact.

Bill Lipira
St. Joseph

Comments

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Meanwhile, LBJ got 52,000 troops killed and implemented a worthless gov dependency program that rewards people for being lazy.
As for cutting Defense bdgets, Clinton was THE leader in that arena. Basically he cut defense (pentions and other benefits to veterans) and increased taxes then patted himself on the back for it.

Maybe if we were strict aout immigration and not so sensitive to "feelings" of the global community, 9/11 would not have happened. Just think, had the gov taken any of the terrorists in, the ACLU and people like Pelosi would stick up for them.

Marctnts

Engineer,

Perhaps the word "rights" would be a better one to use. And to answer that question, I would include privacy, due process, and a trial among others.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not worried about the government thinking I'm a terrorist and listening in. My concern is that once we hand these rights to the government, we will never get them back. I may not be a target in this "war", but who decides what the next "threat" may be and who the government will target in it.

Earl Warren, the Supreme Court chief justice who guided the court through the monumental Brown vs. Board of Education decisions, said that one of his lowest points was the internment of Japanese in California during the war while he was governor. He realized, with a little more distance from the situation, that no amount of perceived threat justified the actions taken.

Engineer

Marctnts
Just what freedoms have been taken away?

CRD

"While we are allegedly being told what to think, at least we ARE thinking."

Not demonstrably, at least from this thread.

Marctnts

"I think the Bush administration has not taken enough of the blame for ignoring the repeated warnings by Richard Clarke and the intelligence community that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States."

This arguments is as dumb as the "at least we're keeping you safe from the boogeyman" one. Bush, in his whopping nine months as presindent before the attack, didn't have nearly enough time to propoerly address any threats had he wanted to. You think we've lost a lot of freedoms now, you should wonder what it would have been like to stop 9/11 in the months before it happened.

Inversly, as I said, the "we're keeping you safe" argument is just a bogus. When we must lose are freedoms to feel "safe", are we really in any better position? What happens when the threat has subsided, do we really think the government will gladly hand back what they have taken away? This doesn't sound like the government I know.

mike d

After enduring nearly 8 years of being told that most Republicans are sheep who cant think beyond what Limbaugh and O'Reilly tell us to think, I would rather be labeled with that BS than be in the same party as this moron. While we are allegedly being told what to think, at least we ARE thinking.

Rogue

Bill, you seem to have forgotten that prior to W, we were pursuing these terrorists with writs and arrest warrants. Hell der schickmesiter was offered UBL on a silver platter but he turned it down because we had "no charges" on him. This is a war, and because you have been kept safe by many good men you chose to whine that they are "scaring you". Wake up loser.

kcstar_is_one_sided

No it was perpetuated by the ineptness of President Carter during his tenure and has stuck. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 were all better.

The real issue is that dems will invariably cut the defense budget, and have to answer to the left side of their party that refuses to acknowledge any threat to the populace if it means tapping phones, extra security checks, etc.

We all know that under the Republicans, we live in a police state (at least that's what I keep hearing at least)

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright