Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Proof that Bush lies every day about Dems lack of security plan

Posted by Bob Geiger at 1:39 PM on November 3, 2006.


The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.
rsa2006

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Julia Eisman Stand Up for Health Care

Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Steven Rosenfeld AlterNet

Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
Heather Gehlert AlterNet

If there's one thing you can count on right along with death and taxes, it's that every day between now and November 7 -- and probably multiple times a day -- George W. Bush will grab a microphone before a large crowd and lie about the lack of ideas coming from Democrats on national security.

Here's Bush just today in Missouri: "If you listen carefully to what the Democrats say about Iraq, you think about what they're saying about their plan for success, there isn't one. This is a major political party that has no plan for success in Iraq."

But unlike some of the half-truths and distortions that come out of the White House and the Republican National Committee, where the sheer slipperiness of them makes getting the truth out kind of a dicey proposition, this one is as easy and clear-cut as it can be.

It was just two months ago that Democrats rolled out the Real Security Act of 2006, a plan whose legislative description left no doubt that Democrats had a plan, saying that it was designed "to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror."

"The Real Security Act of 2006 marks a major change from status quo Bush Republican policies that have left America less safe than it must be," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in introducing the plan. "Unveiled against the backdrop of a new White House media offensive, the legislation spells out the tough and smart path to make America more secure and to deal more effectively with threats that confront America at home and abroad."

These days, you would never know that such a plan exists for two reasons. The first it that it was killed by the Senate GOP leadership on September 13, 2006 on a roll-call vote that went almost straight down party lines. The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.

The second reason that the Democratic strategy is so hard to find is that the corporate media continues to let the no-plan nonsense go unchallenged because, I suppose, it would be too much like real work to read the 528-page piece of security legislation that the Democrats tried to pass.

The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:

  • Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
  • Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
  • Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
  • Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
  • Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
  • Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.

The first time you've heard about this stuff? I thought so. But the facts and the Congressional Record don't lie.

You can get the entire text of the Real Security Act of 2006 here -- but be warned, it's a 1.1 megabyte PDF file of ideas Democrats allegedly don’t have -- and you can see the video of Harry Reid describing the plan here.

So if you've always sensed that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans were lying about the Democratic stance on national security, here's your proof -- please spread it around.

Digg!

Tagged as: security

Bob Geiger is a writer, activist and Democratic District Leader in Westchester County, NY. You can reach Bob at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at BobGeiger.com.


Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Just like John McCain, Palin is putting private market interests before consumers.
Post by Julia Eisman. September 7, 2008.
Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Will cops crack down on election observers in November?
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. September 7, 2008.
Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
A recent survey shows mixed results.
Post by Heather Gehlert. September 7, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
War on terror???
Posted by: sapatatanka on Nov 3, 2006 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone in the USofA ever activated their brain and attempted to think about what they say? War on terror???

People, terror is an emotion, and while you might try to fight an emotion with weapons of mass distortion you'll never win against terrorism this way. Oh, and don't even try to wage a military campaign against terrorists: the military always loses, cf. Algeria, Vietnam, Iraq.

Otherwise, good post, and good to know that the repugs are lying yet again. But what else is new?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War on terror??? Posted by: Paine48
It doesn't matter now.
Posted by: symcokid on Nov 4, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans 'stole' the last two elections and established an agenda in Iraq that we can't automatically walk away from, so even if the Democrats win this time around, their options are stifled. We just keep getting involved deeper in the Middle East foray and have to answer to our Satellite Country that was instrumental in helping to get us involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the story, good job.
Posted by: Lauren on Nov 4, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Count me Independent.

Here is my post election senario for best for the country. The Democratic Party takes the house and a majority or split in the senate, we have a Green senator elected in California(November surprise).

Senator Feinstein represents the very worst of the Democratic party; the lone Green senator gives representation to a large number of people who are completely unrepresented presently, providing the ballast of independent veto power. It will be like a first small step - *back *away *from *using *the *nukes*.

Once the Democratic party controls the house, the impeachment of the Bush-Cheney administration will proceed with increasing urgency. A landslide of indictments and information will quickly result in a Nancy Pelosi presidency. Normal people should take this with a huge sigh of relief and start thinking how they can support a new president, new administration and entertain new goals. Endless war was Bush's thing, Pelosi is reality based.

She will be running for re-election in 08, an election she wants to be a referendum on the excellent job she has been doing - getting our country back on the right track.

So forget about who is running in 08, it is a waste of national attention. Focusing on Feinstein's role in getting us into these many wars would be a much more productive and civicly useful endeavor. This report shows how fragile her support is.

That low number is with a total media blackout on her race and serious fogging of her record. Imagine the race we would be having if we had a free press (why someone is controlling it so much).

She sits on the committees who supervise Homeland Insecurity. I tried to post the Todd4Senate web site on this site a few weeks ago and was denied access to AlterNet through my server. Clever huh? I started to write an email letter to his campaign and my server access to AlterNet was suddenly restored.

If her Flying Monkeys can do that to my computer, imagine the cute tricks they play on average reporters. Who is covering her as news anyway? Anybody...

No one I can find and I have been looking. What kind of newspaper refuses to cover important political races?

Is that a free press?

I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maninmoon
Posted by: maninmoon on Nov 4, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush lies everyday about everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maninmoon Posted by: symcokid
Olbermann Exposed Bush's No Plan Lie Last Night
Posted by: lessbread on Nov 4, 2006 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The transcript isn't yet available for last night's Countdown, but it featured a David Shuster report that examined the Democrat's plan in light of Bush's charge that they didn't have one. Bush seems to think that asking the Democrats "What's your plan?" is a witty rhetorical rejoinder when that same question can more readily be asked of him and with far worse overtones. It should be clear to anyone paying attention to the disaster in Iraq that Bush has no plan and never did. As Bob Woodward's book revealed, what plans there were, they ignored: There was a plan for Iraq - but it was torn up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]