Bush is weak on national security. - Democratic Underground

killbotfactory

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-20-03 02:01 PM
Original message

Bush is weak on national security.

Seriously, has anyone ever seen the guy give a coherent answer about why we are invading Iraq, for example? It's all mumbling, lies, and vague platitudes about "freedom" and "terrar".

What kind of president rushes to war, without adequate support, and no coherent plan of how to stabilize the country post-war? Only one who is weak on national security.

What kind of president does so against a country he accuses of harboring the most dangerous weapons in the world, without any idea of where they are or how to secure them, while using a force too small to even defend old nuclear waste sites from looting which we've known about for years? Only one who is weak on national security.

What kind of president cuts funding for homeland security, among other things, so he can help fund this stupid ill-conceived war? Only one who is weak on national security.

What kind of president pulls resources from the hunt on terrorist groups which actually committed numerous terrorist acts against us, to fight an evil dictator who's only a threat to his own people? Only one who is weak on national security.

What kind of president sends hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy a middle eastern country with loose border, without training them on how to handle post-war security, to become targets for anybody who hates America and knows how to use a gun or make a crude bomb, and lacks the diplomatic skills to get other countries to help out? Only one who is weak on national security.

Ask Bush to explain any of this, and you get a mumbling, lies, and vague answer about "media filters" and "we're creating freedom".

Bush is weak on national security. And the only way you're going to convince the public of that is to raise these points, among others, over and over and over again until it starts to sink in.

That's why I like Howard Dean. He's not afraid of the polls because he knows the only way to change them is to take the lead to convince people otherwise. Dean is a leader on this issue.

That's why I get pissed off with other dems who claim they are strong on national security, but basically tout the Bush admin line that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, and we are so much safer, etc. They falsely claim we are safer thanks to Bush. What the hell kind of message is that? Or they say, "I agree with this war, but would have done it better!" What kind of position is that? These aren't leaders; they're nagging back seat drivers. They're conceding that Bush is making us safer, while he does the opposite. If they truly believe that, then they are idiots.

Here is what the democratic mantra should be: "Bush is weak on national security. Bush is weak on national security. Bush is weak on national security." Repeat until it sinks in. Stop giving Bush an inch of credibility on this issue. He has none.