The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Here's What Democrats Need to Say to Show They're Strong on Fighting Terror


Following last week's foiled terror plot in Britain, the Busheviks are ratcheting up the rhetoric against Democrats. Because they've made the Iraq war the "central front" in their war on terror, they're accusing anyone who is against this quagmire to be weak on defense and national security, and acting to make America less safe against acts of terrorism. But the Dems can and should hit back hard. Here's the overall message Democrats should be firing off to Repugs, the media, voters and just about anyone who'll listen:

"The Republicans say we're weak on fighting terror. Weak on defense and national security. Unable to protect Americans where they live. That's what we expect them to say, as they themselves have failed miserably in keeping our citizens safe. The thwarted terror plot in London last week shows just how woefully inadequate, on Bush's watch, U.S intelligence is as compared to Great Britain's. Without the British, ten London-to-New York airplanes would've been hijacked as planned and blown up over the Atlantic resulting in thousands of deaths. And President Bush says we're safer than before 9/11? Bush says leaving Iraq proves the Democrats don't have the will to fight this war on terror. To the contrary, Mr. President, we very much do, as we demonstrated to you when you sought our support for the Afghanistan invasion. We, like the majority of the country, just don't support this colossal mess you've gotten us into in Iraq...a costly embarrassment which has squandered $300 billion and thousands of lives while having nothing to do with fighting those who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, if we're elected this November, we'll broadly expand and increase funding to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to fight the war on terror. We'll re-deploy much-need troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to finish the job against al Qaeda and The Taliban that you didn't. We'll increase the focus on liquid explosives and other devices you've ignored for the past ten years. We'll require new technology and screening measures at airports, bus and train stations. We'll shore up security at our vulnerable ports. We'll re-open the CIA's bin Laden unit and carry out your failed promise to capture him "dead or alive." We'll increase military pay and recruitment to bolster our armed forces so that we can successfully fight our enemies, wherever they may be. As FDR, Truman, Kennedy and other great Democratic leaders from the past have demonstrated, our party most definitely has the resolve to do whatever is necessary, including using military force, to defend and protect America. Sorry, Mr. President, our vote against your failed Iraq war has nothing to do with our ability to defend and protect America, as much as you'd like voters to think it does. You and your party have failed America in the war on terror. Step aside and let the part of FDR, Truman and Kennedy show America how it's done."

19 Comments:

  • At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Your response sounds like the spineless Dems. It's defensive, convoluted, scattered, too polite, servile and boring. Can't for once a Democrat come out and attack, declare, define, and "sock it to 'em" Could we hear some anger, some passion, some spirit and some strength. You, Andy, were more forceful and passionate in your defense of Israel blasting Lebanon. The Democrats need ardor, strength and presence to win. What you write sounds like Gore or Kerry.

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Even George Will is now on record saying Kerry was right, that fighting terror is essentially an intelligence and law enforcement operation. Still, no one has taken aim at that fat pissant Rove. Why?

    Do you remember when KKKarl Rove went to the Conservative Club of NY (June 2005) and told them "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments...?" Ever since the news broke about the broken plot last Wednesday, I've been waiting for someone, some Dem politician, some decent member of the pundit class or better than average reporter to queue up KKKarl's head. I'm still waiting.

    This is huge, imo, what Rove says is the heart and soul of the Republican narrative, the nexus of their mythology of the September 2001 terrorist attack. They own the story, and the law enforcement and intelligence rumbling of a plot that would have been every bit as spectacular and devastating is a gift to those of us on the other side of the aisle. This is our narrative, our version. In it, we attend to the PDB (to which Bush said, "You've covered your ass, now get out of here."), the signals intel, the odd stories out of the Phoenix FBI office and the request from FBI officer Coleen Rowley.

    Republicans are utterly cavalier in real security work, and this recent incident demonstrates where they failed. If we really want to win in November, and in 2008, we need to make the most of this opportunity.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    andy's right, this is what we need to be saying. Anon 3:55, if all we do is bash and offer up no real plan, then we are no better than Republicans, and we'll lose again because voters will stick with the evil they know instead of the one they don't. andy laid out several aggressive terrorist-fighting platform items which constituts a plan. Something we can say to voters to allay whatever concerns they might have about us being soft on defense.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It doesn't sound much different than the GOP message after all. Besides, the Dem party has not taken any clear position in Iraq - and have been voting along the GOP in congress.

    Here is a revolutionary suggestion: what about analyzing the root cause of terrorism? - I mean the real ones not "because they hate our freedom" Answering questions like, why did they attack us an not - say - Sweden?

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Democrats are spineless jellyfish

    Go have a therapy session with Osama Bin Laden.

    Democrats need more "feel good" policies

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy,
    It sounds like you proposing a lot more spending. Where are you getting this money - from the evil rich?

    so the democratic platform is going to be, "we'll raise your taxes, spend a lot more, and you'll be no more safe than you were with Bush"

    That'll get A LOT MORE votes come November. I got a good idea, throw more MoveOn handpuppets into the general election - especially those weak anti-war candidates.

    By the way, the great Democratic leaders of the past are GONE. The only thing democrats have left is crap -> Shrillary, Mary Joe Kennedy, John "war criminal" Kerry, Abscam Murtha, Nancy "stretch" Pelosi, Dirty Harry Reid, Joe "plagerism" Biden, Al Gore-Gone-Mad, and the rest of the garbage.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Man, it's the same everywhere: the conversation gets harsh on the GOP and the WATBs show up and get nasty on us.

    Get over it, Freepers. You've had your chance, and screwed it up so bad you'll be tripping on your beards before ye get another chance at power. Clues are coming at you thick and fast, and there you are, fingers in your ears, screaming "Lalala I can't hear you!"

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The good ole days are gone. The Messenger is the Message I fear, when it comes to the Presidency.

     
  • At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anonymous 5:11, where are we getting the money from? $300 billion will go a long way after democrats finally put an end to the Iraq debacle that your president created.

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Anonymous Larry said…

    Hold the Presses! The Democrats have a plan!

    - "we'll broadly expand and increase funding to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to fight the war on terror."

    How broadly will you expand? Will you wiretap telephone calls that originate in Al Qaeda strongholds and terminate in America?

    Will you monitor international financial transactions?

    Will you monitor public internet access points (like libraries) for suspicious research?


    - "We'll re-deploy much-need troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to finish the job against al Qaeda and The Taliban that you didn't."

    What if Al Qaeda leaves Afghanistan? Will you follow Al Qaeda anywhere they go? What if you are not welcome where they are?

    - "We'll increase the focus on liquid explosives and other devices"

    Democrats ignored 'project bojinka' - first discovered when Ramsi Yousef's apartment exploded in 1995, which was a plot to blow up 10 commercial airliners using a liquid explosion.
    What and where will you increase the focus on liquids? Will you search people on the streets or only airliners? What's your plan?

    - "We'll require new technology and screening measures at airports, bus and train stations."

    Will you support private companies doing this work? Why did Democrats oppose private screeners? Are Democratic ties to unions a conflict of interest for holding screeners accountable? Why did Democrats make is so difficult to fire airport screeners who don't perform well?

    - "We'll shore up security at our vulnerable ports."

    What percentage of cargo containers do you propose screening? How will you pay for the increase in overhead costs for imports? Do you have a plan that will not negatively the growing economy?

    - "We'll re-open the CIA's bin Laden unit and carry out your failed promise to capture him 'dead or alive.'"

    Do you support covert operations into countries that we are not welcome? Do you support killing OBL without a trial? Will you provide him with the best lawyers?


    - "...our party most definitely has the resolve..."

    Is this the same resolve that results in the aborting of your 2000 Vice Presidential nominee from your party because he only towed the party line 86% of the time?

    Is this the same resolve that caused your 2004 Presidential nominee to vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

     
  • At 10:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Guys -
    Time to recognize that the "war on terror" is the same scam as the Cold War. Three actions: (i) out of Iraq (now); (ii) End support for repressive Arav regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia; and (iii) stop taking Israel's side on a knee jerk basis.

    Terrorism is anything that strikes terror in the hearst/minds of those on the receivind end. How is J. Mccain's bombong of Vietnamese from 30,000 feet (or the Israel analogue) any more "moral" than someione strapping a bomb to ther body and walking into a restaurant???

    Until we grasp and articulate findamental existential and moral equivalence we will not be able to defeat those who define terror in their own terms (i.e. neo-fascist Republicans - but I repeat myself).

    - Avenging Angel

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Exactly! Anon 10:01 PM is right. Stop using the same terms, rationale, etc. as the GOPs. Work on eliminating the root causes of terrorism!

     
  • At 9:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree. When John Kerry was razing villages in Vietnam, I'm sure he was creating terror in the innocent civilians that he murdered.

    Is anonymous 10:01 actually suggesting that America should consider taking the terror group Hezbollah's side every once in a while instead of knee jerk defense of Israel?

    And to think, some people actually 'think' Democrats are appeasers. How can you 'think' it, when it is such an obvious fact. Americans should 'know' Democrats are appeasers.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Anonymous ToughOnWarCrime said…

    It's time to link another element to "Repugs Have Failed Everyone On Security": and that is the issue of Massive Corruption.

    With administration's credibility rapidly falling, Dems should remind the public of the corruption scandals, and bring on the list of all the ways the administration's agenda is really nothing but War Profiteering in the Iraq War mess.

    The public is now ready to believe the worst about this administration, so the Dems should include the Corruption Factor in. Make pledges to clean out the Justice Department through investigations of all mis-spending, showing how lax and complicit Gonzales has been -- he deserves to be absolutely disgraced.

     
  • At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Larry said…

    hey toughonwarcrime,

    Funny name for a weak Democrat. Is that like calling the fat kid 'skinny'?

    The Culture of Corruption slogan died first half of this year. It appears the Democrats had too much corruption themselves and thought best to stay quiet on corruption.

    There is the lobbyist organization run by John Murtha's (D-PA) brother and a long time Murtha cronie, who recently got $20 million dollars earmarked for their defense clients. Murtha is the ranking Democrat for the defense appropriations committee and his brother is a defense lobbyist. This is the same Murtha that was part of the Abscam bust years ago. Yeah, he managed to slime out of abscam and stay in the senate.

    Then there's William Jefferson (D-LA) who was busted with $90,000 in his freezer. He was actually video taped accepting $100,000 for a bribe. He even laughed on the video because the undercover officers whispering. He said, "What are you whispering for, you think the FBI is listening?". Funny stuff. He is still actively voting in the house.

    Then, there is always Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who was busted by the Federal Election Commission. Apparently, two political action committees linked to Pelosi were caught circumventing the legal limits on campaign giving - same thing as Tom DeLay.

    I wonder, do you have a problem with corrupt Democrats, or do you only care about the Republican corruption?

     
  • At 6:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    About taking clues from this LA Times article?

    "Why They Hate Us"

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-sweig15aug15,0,1082229.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Anonymous toughonwarcrime said…

    Larry,

    I do have a problem with any corruption, regardless of the party. That's a no-brainer, but I guess I need to point it out to you ... yet your point is not without merit. In the interest of keeping my post yesterday brief, I left out some details of the message I feel will help the Democrats show some spine: I think that if someone is running on a promise to excise corruption, with real investigations rather than the look-asides and gestures that come out of the Repub-controlled congress, then they ought to promise us, the voters, that no corruption will be overlooked.

    And guess what: the Culture of Corruption characterization was and still is valid, and as the scales fall from the eyes of the public, it can actually be brought back.

    You're standing on the weakest of ground. The examples you give are weak. Abscam and Murtha: how about having the directness to say just how many years ago that was? and when you come right down to it, who is really more implicated in dirty dealing, who's the bigger a**hole, Murtha or Rove (for his part in the Plame outing alone?)

    Reality is, if you had started with the examples of the biggest wastes of money -- billions upon billions -- which party would top the list? Your counter-plaints are nothing but the usual tired-out Repug talking points.

    And don't you believe that war crime is war crime, regardless of which side is committing it?

    BTW, openning a debate statement with an insult, however poorly and ridiculously contrived, is not exactly the sign of a strong intellect.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Anonymous Larry said…

    toughonwarcrime,
    The eighth word you typed in your 2:34 post, "Repugs", is a poorly and ridiculously contrived insult. I'll take your point and welcome you into the same intellectual grouping as myself.

    While Murtha's escape from abscam was over 30 years ago, his is TODAY the ranking democrat in the defense appropriations committee. His brother, "Kit", is TODAY a lobbyist for 10-20 defense contractors. The 2004 Defense Appropriations committee gave $20 million in government earmarks to Kit Murtha's client base.

    Rove and nobody else (including scooter libby) was ever indicted for 'outing Valerie Plame'. Besides the FACT that Plame was not undercover and therefore was not covered by the law forbidding the outing of an UNDERCOVER CIA agent.

    I agree with you that this administration has spent more than any other and for that I am ashamed of the republicans in office.

    I do believe a war crime is a war crime. I also believe our soldiers deserve a fair trial before they are considered war criminals. Unlike Murtha, who labeled our soldiers cold-blooded murderers before they even had an opportunity to go before a judge - I also believe in fair trials.

    So how weak is the FACT that William Jefferson (D-LA) is still voting in the house? He was caught on video and had the cash hidden in his freezer. You may also remember that during the Katrina flooding, William Jefferson took a handful of national guard members off the job of saving people to get a refridgerator from his house. This was prior to the video-taped bust. I wonder what could have been in that refridgerator and if it was worth it to take national guard troops away from saving innocent people.

    As I've said before, the only way to clean up Washington is to throw ALL DEMOCRATS and ALL REPUBLICANS out of office. I know that I'm not guided by partisan politics - are you?

     
  • At 7:28 PM, Anonymous toughoncivilianwarcrime said…

    Larry,

    My choice of handle this week is evidently subject to unintended interpretations, and I'll change it after this thread, it sucks anyway. I never intended it to apply to the troops being scapegoated as "bad apples", and I fully agree they in no way should be judged by us before they have a fair trial. Even after trial I would tend to be skeptical, because of what I know - or try to imagine - about what they're going through over there. What I am all for is full accountability for those mongers at the top, which accountability I doubt will ever ensue because of people who will claim to be worried about "what it would do to the nation if we ever put a former President on trial for crimes [War or otherwise]."

    Regarding Throw Them All Out -- I can sympathize with you on this. I was actually coming back to this Haloscan to post a second note to you after I read this article: http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=177D564F-E0C3-F084-D824C8A8B84A7916
    which all-to-acutely reminded me of how discouraged most of us (progressives, on-the-left, whatever) are about how ensnared the Democrats are in the Influence of Big Money, instead of the Will of the People. And don't even get me started on the DLC.

    But I'm hearing and reading many Republicans (sorry about the egregious slur in my previous post) who say they don't think the their party should be in control of congress anymore. (Not to mention the rest of us.) Now, I know that a Dem win in November will only be the first step -- I'm grimly prepared for the "sucking sound" of nothing happening, those in control shrinking back to business as usual, triangulation, and downright kowtowing to corporate interests. Then we need to get really MAD, it will be time to hold the Dems accountable, to put the Fear in them, by God. And if it means throwing them all out, then to the extent that is possible, I'll be all for it, and will work towards that goal.

    Thanks for welcoming me to your intellectual strata, I'm sure you consider yourself a smart guy. But please, don't bring up that Fox echo chamber lie about Plame not being undercover. She was a NOC, her status was secret, and ratting her out was an egregious offense against the CIA, for which their legal department requested a formal, criminal investigation. A serious offense was committed, and the administration compounded it with Obstruction and other coverup tactics, and Rove's escaping indictment was by a narrow squeak at best.

    Was Murtha ever indicted 30 (I think it was more like 25) years ago or since? Was he the target of a grand jury investigation? He got named as an unindicted co-conspirator, was present when FBI undercover agent was offering briefcases of cash, but turned down the money. What did he gain?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home