Skip to main content

View Diary: Reframing Bush's national security record (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush surrogates actively downplayed terrorism (none)
    ... in order to bolster the case for missile defense systems.

    Specifically, various arguments were raised against the feasibility of attack inside our borders, including the threat from smuggled nukes.

    •  This was my immediate reaction (none)
      Post 9/11, I immediately thought that this should put the nail in the coffin of missile defense.

      But the same administration that spun the attacks into an invasion of Iraq, has also spun it as a justification for missile defense.  I just feel that the Republicans, pre 9/11, just didn't take terrorism seriously and, today, they still just don't get it.  They still want to play cold-war era geopolitical battles in a completely different landscape and with a much more unpredictable enemy.

      Why can't we bang on them as being SOFT on terror?  Clark tried this (but got no traction), and Dean was beaten up (by Democrats...) for declining to equate capturing Saddam with making America safer.  The way the primary season unfolded seems to gave given the Democrats no leverage to continue to challenge Bush on these issues, but we need to find a way.

      •  I agree with you (none)
        I've never understood why the Republicans are seen as tough on defense and the Democrats seen as weak.

        They're still pushing the stupid Star Wars Missile Defense, and they're not going after Pakistan or N. Korea for their nukes.  They're much more likely to send weapons to terrorists!  They cut the budget for nuclear non-proliferation, port security and first responders.

        Why are so many statements taken as fact by so many people in the liberal media?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site