How the heck do rethugs get away with being more on National Security than the democrats

[bigdarryl]

It's total nonsense Obama has been killing more terrorist in Afghanistan than Bush did and also has deported more illegal immigrants than Bush did.It goes to show how IGNORANT the people in this country are. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38711239/ns/politics/

[mrcheerful]

1. The same way Bush got credited for no terrorists attacks after 9/11 and

9/11 wasn't on his watch it was Clintons fault because he didn't take out Bin Laden when he never had a chance or cause to take him out. Pretty much like Reagan is given credit for destroying the USSR and getting rid of the Berlin wall. Reality is a concept that escapes the conservatards.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. My only guess

is that Republicans turned Democratic/left-wing opposition to Vietnam and Carter's failure to retrieve the hostages during the Iranian hostage crisis into "weak on national security" and I don't think that we've ever been able to successfully counter that. Of course, Democrats haven't been in office very many times since Carter (a combined total of 8-10 years now) nor have any of our Presidents used the military to launch any massive wars during their administrations since Vietnam.

Clinton used the military to thwart Serbian aggression in Bosnia (which was a success) and keep Saddam Hussein in check (which successfully knocked out his remaining WMD arsenal I might add) but neither of these instances were all-out "war" like what normally make people *orgasmic* about our Presidents and our military. The Republicans, of course, successfully smeared Clinton over the disaster over our military intervention in Somalia (which, interestingly enough, the Republicans demanded he "cut and run" from), the fact that he was an avowed draft dodger during Vietnam (see above), and/or that he was "wagging the dog" whenever he used the military- making him essentially unworthy of support for any of his military actions- notwithstanding the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney saw any combat either let alone actually served in the military themselves AFAWK.

Also, no Democratic administration to date has ever AFAWK supported, condoned, and/or advocated for torturing prisoners. Now, how/why a lot of people equivocate starting unnecessary "wars of choice", brutalizing prisoners, and indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects without allowing for a normal civilian trial with being "strong on national security" remains a TOTAL mystery to me. Supporting anything less than invading countries and kicking the s**t out of people we don't like seems to make one "weak on national security", I guess. :shrug: :eyes: :banghead:

[blm]

3. Why do you think GOPs fascist cronies bought control of most broadcast media in the 80s and 90s?

?

[geckosfeet]

4. ... and being 'pro gun' automagically means that you are an expert on national security.

[Bitwit1234]

5. The media the media the media who praise and manufacture

each and every utterance a republican spews. HOW IN THE HELL COULD PALIN KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. But they quote her as an expert.

[GoCubsGo]

6. Exactly right.

Whoever owns the media owns the message. ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/Fox all owned by right-wingers.

[Cosmocat]

7. Hardball a few years ago ...

there was some kind of discussion about BO, and Mathews just came out and said to the congresscritter that was talking about it that, "national security is a republican strength, just the way it is ..."

THAT summed it up, pretty much ...

The Rs define the "debate" and the media follows their framing ... They say they are "strong on security" even though they were a flaming national security disaster they last decade, and the media just gives it to them ...