Daily Kos

Clark/Reid/Pelosi :: Democratic National Security Report NOW

Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:13:08 AM PDT

Try to watch it!::C-SPAN Coverage NOW::

The Democrats are presenting their report/proposals that address terrorism, foreign policy and national security!

Update [2006-9-5 12:18:46 by Knightrider]: Wesley Clark just finished, and empathically stated that the war in Iraq was a "strategic blunder" ,.. "It was a mistake" by this administration, whose policies have made us less secure now, than we were 5 years ago.

[Update]: C-Span is taking calls now::

Dems Line :: 202-583-3885
Others :: 202-583-3887
Bush supporters :: 202-GO2-IRAQ


Ruth at CCN may post a video later today
=========

09/05/06
Third Way Releases New National Security Report with Clark, Reid, Other Senior Congressional Leaders

"The Neo Con," New Study on Bush Security Record, Rolled Out at Capitol Hill Press Conference

Washington: Third Way today issued a new report analyzing the Bush administration's record on national security. The report was released at a press conference in the Capitol with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, retired General Wesley Clark, Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Carl Levin, and founding Third Way Co-Chair Senator Thomas Carper. In The Neo Con: The Bush Defense Record by the Numbers, Third Way analyzed available data across seven key national security indicators: Iraq, terrorism (broadly defined), Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the condition of the American military, and China. The report finds that the numbers lead to an indisputable conclusion that incompetence and a failed strategy have "helped lead us to this dangerous situation."

Sharon Burke, Director of the Third Way National Security Project and principal author of the report, said in her remarks at the event: "We believed that it was time to take a hard look at our national security situation, with the United States at a crossroads in Iraq and facing enormous challenges in that region and around the world. We're also five and half years into the administration of George W. Bush, and that's a good time to take a look at the President's results. Third Way set out to measure whether President Bush is making America safer. And the answer is no, based on our analysis."

The Neo Con analyzed the Bush administration's promises against the publicly available data in seven categories, and in each they were found lacking.

Some of the findings include :

* Iraq: The numbers show that the security situation is deteriorating rapidly - a chart shows that the number of average weekly attacks has risen steadily since the invasion, and the estimated number of insurgents in the country has gone from 5,000 in 2003 to more than 20,000 in April 2006. The report also compares the cost of Operation Desert Storm to the estimated costs of the Iraq War ($61.1 billion in 1991, compared to $549 billion-$1.27 trillion today). And the data show that indices of Iraqi quality of life have plummeted and our alliances have suffered significantly under the Bush Iraq policies.

* Terrorism: Despite the Bush claim that his administration had "arrested or otherwise dealt with" much of al Qaeda's command structure, the estimated number of al Qaeda members has jumped from 20,000 in 2001 to 50,000 today, worldwide attacks are up sharply, and 86% of national security experts believe that the world is more dangerous for Americans today.

* Afghanistan: The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating rapidly - the data in the report show that number of Taliban attacks rose from 22 in 2001-2003 to 251 in 2004-2006, and the numbers continue to rise. Moreover, as recent news reports confirm, the unrest and Taliban resurgence have helped the country's opium production to hit all-time highs.

* Iran: The data show that Iran's nuclear program has made significant progress during Bush's terms in office.

* North Korea: Similarly, the data show that North Korea's nuclear capabilities have skyrocketed - they may have had one nuclear weapon in 2001, but experts are fairly certain they have between 3 and 9 today (and the ability to make many more), combined with a rapidly moving missile production system.

* The US Military: The data show that the Bush stewardship of the military and the Iraq War have had serious dilatory effects on readiness and the overall state of the military, especially the Army, National Guard and Reserves.

* China: While Bush has been focused on Iraq and elsewhere, China has become a powerful regional broker, our largest creditor and an ally of some of our most serious enemies.

Burke concluded that "across the board, the numbers are troubling. They just don't match the tough talk coming from the President, the Vice President and other members of the administration. The numbers don't lie - the Bush strategy is not working."

http://www.third-way.com/...

Tags: Wesley Clark, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Policy, Terrorism, National Security, Foreign Policy, 9-11 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  excellent (9+ / 0-)

    I'm hopeful video will soon be available. It never hurts to email or call c-span with a word of thanks & a suggestion that they make it available online to help make it so (not everything seems to be archived & made available- this is major, so it should be--)

    I'd say this was "a great event" but in reality, it was rather frightening to have a sober analysis of the destruction being done to our country & to the world...

    May it not fall on deaf ears. I hate it when I see Wes looking grim.

    C-SPAN TELEPHONE NUMBERS
     
    Main Number: (202) 737-3220
    C-SPAN Archives: (877) ON CSPAN (general number)

    PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS
    Viewer Services: Questions about our schedule, how to buy videotapes, and for any other general comments about C-SPAN - viewer@c-span.org

  •  umm mr bush our ports and boarders are wide open (5+ / 0-)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  This is good... (6+ / 0-)

    This should be the right attack.  Are you safer than you were 5 years ago?  And I don't want to hear any whining about how the Dems don't have a plan.  They need to hit the incumbents with ineffectiveness, corruption, incompetence and complacency.  The plan is to attack.

    '[Obama] has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults.' - John Cole

    by RichM on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:19:18 AM PDT

    •  Oh and... (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Nelsons, jen, eve, Sybil Liberty, Othniel

      Go Wesley!

      '[Obama] has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults.' - John Cole

      by RichM on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:31:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a more pragmatic reason (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      RichM, Yellow Canary, Lashe

      The White House unveiled its own "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" today.

      Glenn Greenwald

      It is largely composed of empty rhetorical platitudes which are by now depressingly familiar. Its fundamental premise is that "The War on Terror will be a long war," but no need to worry, because we have a very specific and coherent strategy for winning:

         

      There will continue to be challenges ahead, but along with our partners, we will attack terrorism and its ideology, and bring hope and freedom to the people of the world. This is how we will win the War on Terror.

      So that's "how we will win the War on Terror" -- we're going to "bring hope and freedom to the people of the world."

      Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

      by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:39:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Terrorism objectives reached with 9/11-- (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Yellow Canary

    because our leaders used it to terrorize Americans for five years.

    Rethugs say "no terror attacks in five years."

    Why should they bother to attack again when they reached their objective on 9/11?

    We've spent what, a trillion dollars in all?

    We've been on terror alert orange?

    We've been spending on military more and less on programs to help people.

    Thank God the Democrats won control of the Senate... otherwise, think of how different everything would be. -G.Greenwald

    by Gorette on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:25:13 AM PDT

  •  this is good cop stuff (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Knightrider, Yellow Canary

    this is part of the charade. it allows members of congress off the hook. it was said by rep. stony that there has been no accountablity in the adminstration.... it is congress which is supposed to make the other two branches accountable.

    Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

    by john de herrera on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:30:31 AM PDT

  •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)

    Iran: The data show that Iran's nuclear program has made significant progress during Bush's terms in office.

    How is "significant" being defined here?

    Institute for Science and International Studies (ISIS), via War & Piece

    "Despite Iran failing to meet U.S. Security Council demands to halt enrichment, progress at Natanz is slower than expected."

       Iran has made limited progress at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, installing and operating fewer gas centrifuges than expected. Senior Vienna-based diplomats have confirmed to ISIS that Iran may be either delaying deliberately the pace of its work while diplomatic efforts are underway, or is experiencing technical problems with its centrifuge program. ...

       Iran has also failed to install as many cascades in the Natanz pilot plant as expected. In April 2006, U.S. government and IAEA officials expected Iran to have installed five cascades ... It now appears that Iran has not begun to operate the second and third cascades at the pilot plant, although they may be close to completion. ...

       It is possible that Iran's leadership has deferred installation out of concern that the facility would be a target of military strikes should diplomacy fail to resolve the nuclear issue. It is also possible that Iran has prepared undisclosed facilities for research and development of uranium centrifuges and deployment of additional cascades, although no evidence of such facilities currently operating has emerged from IAEA inspections.

    The ISIS August 31 issue brief (.pdf) is available here.

    Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

    by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:35:07 AM PDT

    •  ISIS (5+ / 0-)

      Is the source! If you google "aluminum tubes" they are  the 2nd hit. From March 10, 2003, it completely blows out the myth of the tubes for nuclear use.

      The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with. Mike Hastie U.S. Army Medic Vietnam 1970-71

      by BOHICA on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:39:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The point is that they've enriched uranium,.. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, jen

      and clearly have centrifuges to achieve suffecient quantities that could potentially produce a "dirty bomb."  

      But just as significantly, if not moreso, Iran has become the real winner, geopolitically, in the region subsequent to our invasion of Iraq.  In fact, Clark wrote this in his NYTimes Op/ED piece, "The Next Iraq Offensive":

      The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

      While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel."

      Iran is becoming the dominant power in the region. They know that our forces are "bogged down" and vulnerable to Iran's missiles and weaponry; even worse should they develop one with a nuclear warhead.

      •  Larijani (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        KayCeSF

        Recently said in Europe that he didn't know if the opposition to the nuclear enrichment had to do with the current leadership in Iran or the nuclear issues as the Bush folks say.  Apparently, before Ahmadinejad was elected (Larijani ran against him) the US knew about their attempts to become nuclear and didn't say anything about it at that time.  I took that to mean that there was room for talks about the real concerns.  Iran has uranium they can mine right there in their own country.  James Fallows wrote an excellent article in Atlantic Monthly some months ago about the question is not "if" a nuclear Iran, but "when?"  Figuring out how to live in a world where this is a reality seems to be what people should be talking about now.  You are right, Iran was the big winner from our going to Iraq.  I suspect that was their hope all along when we went there based on the lies of their good buddy Chalabi.

        Winning without Delay.

        by ljm on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:15:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure about that (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        KayCeSF

        Iran's capabilities haven't reached even North Korea's levels.

        and clearly have centrifuges to achieve suffecient quantities that could potentially produce a "dirty bomb."  

        Do they?  It's not clear what they have or don't have and that's a huge problem.  The evidence is circumstantial, not conclusive.  And, I might add that right now, it’s the same quality of “evidence” that the administration was pushing about Iraq.  And look how well that worked out for us.

        Last week on NPR's "Morning Edition," David Kay said these are the questions to answer in order to be 100% sure that Iran has a weapons objective:

        1. Are they shaping uranium metal into the unique shapes used in a weapons program?  
        1. Is there high-explosive testing of lenses used to bring a warhead together at the critical point of detonation?  
        1. Are they producing the exotic metals for a warhead?  
        1. Are they enriching uranium to the high enrichment level instead of the level needed for peaceful objectives?  

        We don’t know any of this because it hasn’t been observed.

        Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

        by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:17:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Evidence doesn't match Bush's tough rhetoric... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DanD, KayCeSF, jen, Sybil Liberty

    those words more or less conveyed by the Sharon Burke, Diretor of the Third Way.

    Not coincidentally, Bush is about to "talk tough" again on C-SPAN (next), just "same'ole, same'ole" ,.. a'hole

  •  fox news (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, jen, eve, rapala

    I occasionally do work for a network whose parent company is Fox, and this morning I had to go into their offices to exchange some material.  Although I'll peek at O'Reilly or Hannity in weak moments, waiting in their lobby is typically the only time I get to see Fox News.  

    This is how Fox News covered that Democratic report, and the ensuing press conference.

    They conducted an interview with Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is running for re-election, and at random intervals, up in the corner, they'd go to a live shot of the Democratic press conference, with the sound down.

    Fair and balanced.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:56:42 AM PDT

  •  suprised? (0+ / 0-)

    If we had our representatives focus on the Millenium Development Goals, the security of our nation would not be so perilous.
    The MDG would allow countries to develop and prosper in a way that would make the prospect of attacks obsolete. The countries that we feel are keeping us at risk would no longer harbor resentment against us if they themselves had prosperity and decency of life. These things can be achieved, and the plan to achieve them was agreed to by almost every nation on earth in 2000. It's time to get them going!

  •  About Afghanistan: (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jen

    Afthanistan is only one example of how we get fooled, and fooled again, and those who continue to believe that we or the world at large is safer under Bush are being shamefully fooled further.  Shameful what has happened in Afghanistan under this administration!

    How U. S. dollars disappear in Afghanistan:  quickly and thoroughly
    Ann Jones

    Sunday, September 3, 2006

    Remember when peaceful, democratic, reconstructed Afghanistan was advertised as the exemplar for the extreme makeover of Iraq? In August 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was already proclaiming the new Afghanistan "a breathtaking accomplishment" and "a successful model of what could happen to Iraq." As everybody now knows, the model isn't working in Iraq. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn that it's not working in Afghanistan either.

    To understand the failure -- and fraud -- of reconstruction in Afghanistan, you have to take a look at the peculiar system of U.S. aid for international development. During the past five years, the United States and many other donor nations pledged billions of dollars to Afghanistan, yet Afghans keep asking: "Where did the money go?" American taxpayers should be asking the same question.

    ~SNIP~  read on at...

    http://securingamerica.com/...

    •  This is the bottom line of the article, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jen

      that it's not just our taxpayers' money that has been stolen, but worse Bush has destroyed hope for the people of Afghanistan because of his and Rumsfeld's lies.  And I would ask, how many of these desperate people will go the way of the Taliban thanks to GWB?

      They complain that half the capital city lies in ruins, that many people still live in tents, that thousands can't find jobs, that children go hungry, that schools are overcrowded and hospitals dirty, that women in tattered burqas still beg in the streets and turn to prostitution, that children are kidnapped and sold into slavery or murdered for their kidneys or their eyes.

      They wonder where the promised aid money went and what the puppet government can do.

Permalink | 24 comments