4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism? (view source)
Revision as of 12:37, April 23, 2007
, 12:37, April 23, 2007→Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism?
==DA!==
==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism?==
Does the question mean anything? How successful have the Republicans been so far? '''I don't think Democrats would have done any better,''' and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.
*There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky.
*On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/text/20011217-4.html] The administration's has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a major goals of the war on terror, and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject.
*Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable test of the effectiveness of that organization.
*The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html]
Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)