Republicans
History shows Republicans are wedded to failed policies which cannot promote
economic growth or protect American security. As proven in other articles at this
site, Republican voodoo economics ruin the economy and run up the national
debt.
Failed Republican policies caused nine of the last ten recessions, and extend
and deepen down-turns. Their budgets and actions increase poverty and widen the
gulf between haves and have-nots. Republican inability to run the economy is
well established, so there's no need to belabor that point. Their failure to
conduct diplomacy or other national security policy is less widely understood.
However, as the facts show:
Republican Foreign Policy Failures Leave America
Vulnerable. Republicans promulgate a myth of strength and
competence in military and foreign policy. Republicans often accuse Democrats of
"decimating" defense. A quick recap of the latter 20th Century exposes this as
simply inaccurate. When it comes to keeping America safe, Republicans are
absurdly overrated.
Weapons of mass destruction deployed by rogue states threaten us
today. We're facing these threats in large part because Ronald Reagan and George
W. Bush reversed decades of US national security policy. Reagan said nuclear
proliferation was "none of our business." Once a bulwark against the spread of
nuclear weaponry, Reagan made America complicit in it.
GW Bush sided with rogue nations like Iran, Iraq and Libya and
opposed our allies when he withdrew US support for treaties to control
biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. See: Mark Tran, US spurns
chemical weapons ban. "A 1972 treaty banning biological weapons has been
added to the list of international protocols Bush has decided to ignore," the
Guardian (UK), May 21, 2001:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,494257,00.html.
This is even worse than his father, who merely obstructed
enforcement by demanding
unrealistic standards for compliance. See: Lee Feinstein, Another Bush
flipflop - this time on chemical weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
December 1990 Vol. 46, No. 10:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1990/d90/d90feinstein.html.
The facts belie Republicans' claims they are "tough on defense."
Republicans Reagan, Bush and Bush helped empower terrorists and rogue nations.
Other Republicans cut defense readiness. With the exception of Ronald Reagan,
every Cold War Republican president actually cut military spending. Every Cold
War Democratic President increased it. So much for
Republican propaganda about Democrats "decimating Defense."
Defense Spending, Constant Dollars (adjusted for inflation)
| Truman's last budget spent |
$437.0 Billion |
| Eisenhower's first budget cut defense
to |
$402.1 Billion |
| Republican CUT Defense by |
$34.9 Billion |
| Eisenhower's last budget spent |
$291.1 Billion |
| Kennedy's first increased defense to |
$300.0 Billion |
| Democrat INCREASED Defense by |
$8.9 Billion |
| Johnson's last budget spent |
$371.8 Billion |
| Nixon's first cut defense to |
$346.0 Billion |
| Republican CUT Defense by |
$25.8 Billion |
| Ford's last budget spent |
$232.7 Billion |
| Carter's first increased defense to |
$233.2 Billion |
| Democrat INCREASED Defense by |
$500
Million |
Although Carter's initial increase was hardly dramatic, his last budget spent
$ 260.8 Billion on defense, an increase of $28.1 Billion over Ford's last
budget, capping four straight years of real increases in defense spending. See:
U.S. Military Spending,
1945-1996, Center for Defense Information, Prepared by Martin Calhoun,
Senior Research Analyst from Department of Defense and CDI data, July 9, 1996:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html.
To hear the Republican revisionists tell it, all the Democrats cut
military spending and Jimmy Carter turned the Pentagon into a shopping mall.
Most people are shocked to learn that Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon,
and Ford cut defense while Democrats Kennedy, Johnson and Carter increased
defense spending. This is because Republicans successfully mislead voters to win
elections.
Reagan alone among Cold War Republicans increased defense
spending. He proved that more money isn't always the answer, however, as he
launched the most wasteful overspending in world history. Reagan "threw money"
by the 100s of $billions at a problem that didn't really exist, something he
called "the window of vulnerability." No US commander would have exchanged our
military for the Soviets', and every Soviet general would jump at that trade in
a heartbeat.
Reagan's profligate spending - mainly on projects and boondoggles
which never added much to defense - ran up the national debt as he overreacted
to the real but exaggerated Soviet threat. Reagan's grandstanding speeches did
nothing to effect peaceful change in the Eastern Bloc; however his reckless
saber rattling threatened to plunge the planet into nuclear war. Fortunately,
Gorbachev took charge and kept the Cold War cold.
Reagan Never "Won the Cold War." That's a Ridiculous
Myth.
While some people credit Reagan for "winning the Cold War," that
simply can't be the case. Credit goes to many Americans. Farsighted leaders like
Harry S. Truman, George Marshall - a moderate Republican attacked by McCarthyite
Republicans - and others like George F. Kennan designed the successful
containment policy. They established the programs and alliances like NATO and
the Marshall Plan which carried it out.
Kennan laughed off Republicans' claims Reagan or their party won the Cold
War: "The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence
decisively the course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another
great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish.
No great country has that sort of influence on the internal developments of any
other one." See: Kennan, George, "Republicans Won the Cold War?" At A Century's
Ending, p.185. Originally published (in a somewhat different version) in the New
York Times, October 28, 1992.
Countless American men and women - and our allies - sacrificed in uniform and
in support of our national security efforts from 1945 until the Soviet Union
collapsed, after Reagan retired. Crediting Reagan or the GOP for "winning the
Cold War" is risible and disrespectful to all those who really won the Cold
War.
After President Carter achieved historic breakthroughs for peace,
Reagan squandered the chance to build on Carter's leadership in the Middle East
and increased security in Latin America. Reagan overturned Jimmy Carter's human
rights policy, opting for a new approach centered on violence and reaction which
Reagan called "anti-terrorism." He named his Vice President George H. W. Bush to
head his anti-terror task force.
Calling Reagan's policies "antiterrorism" is a sick joke. He illegally funded
terrorists in Central and South America who raped and killed our citizens and
their people alike. Reagan backed cruel torturers and thugs whose failed
policies alienated their own people, leading to unrest. Reagan blindly assumed
the Soviets were causing this strife, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Reagan's matched his failures in this hemisphere with fatal mistakes in the
Middle East.
It would be difficult to imagine a worse failure than Reagan's
lack of leadership that caused the deaths of 241 US Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.
Reagan tried to blame this catastrophe on Jimmy Carter, a preposterous lie
because Reagan's orders put the marines in harm's way as part of an unformed,
pointless policy and undermined Carter's work for peace in the region. This is
typical right wing lack of responsibility. It gets even worse.
Reagan's fatal failure is especially unforgivable because he had
fair warning: a car bomb attack almost identical to the one which blew up the
marine barracks weeks before. Also, reports Reagan ignored indicated that this
position was vulnerable. The barracks guards were unarmed under Reagan's
policies.
Reagan loudly proclaimed the US forces would remain in Beirut, but
quietly slipped them out after he ordered an attack on the tiny island Grenada.
To complete the charade, Reagan continued to ship weapons to Iran and other
terrorist states which armed and supported the terrorists who killed our
marines. Typical Republican foreign policy failure. All this illustrates the
right wing approach to international relations and defense. Fail, blame someone
else, announce your defiance, but then cut and run. We're seeing this again
today as Bush's Iraq policy degenerates into Reaganite failure.
Democrats Favor Strength through Peace and
Prosperity.
Even if siding with tyrants were a necessary expedient during the Cold War -
something far from certain - the record shows US leaders of both parties
embraced the worst regimes at high cost to US moral and geopolitical standing.
Along with modernizing our defense forces, President Carter moved American
policy forward. He broke with the long-standing strategy of aligning the US with
dictators - even engineering coups against elected governments - which often
"blew back" against us and undermined our national security.
Today - a decade after the Cold War ended - Republicans are still
driving us backward toward failed policies of the past. Scholars at the Nautilus
Institute note:
"In 1947 Kennan singled out one standard above military prowess or
economic muscle which the Cold War would test: 'To avoid destruction the United
States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy
of preservation as a great nation.' Now, with the Cold War behind us, can it
truly be said that we have passed this test?" The think-tank experts express
their doubts, largely due to failed Republican scandals and ruthless,
self-defeating policies:
"The paranoid red-baiting of Joseph McCarthy, the cynicism of
secret CIA-sponsored coups overturning elected regimes, the breached trust of
Watergate, the duplicity of the Iran-Contra affair, all add up to a weighty and
depressing litany of failures. Recent revelations that secret Bush
Administration policies, rooted in Cold War logic, contributed to the buildup of
Iraq simply add to this sorry score." See "Who Won the Cold
War?" In Timothy Breen, ed., The Power of Words: Documents in American
History (New York: Harper Collins, 1995):
http://www.nautilus.org/admin/staff/wademore.html
Reagan and Bush put special interests over national security when
they let their campaign contributors sell weapons to both sides in the Iran /
Iraq war. Reagan even directly armed Iran and lied to the American people about
it. Clearly selling weapons to these terrorist nations undermined our long-term
security interests. Upon taking the presidency, George H. W. Bush continued and
expanded illegal, illogical arms deals with Iraq. Bush even sent Senator Bob
Dole and others to kowtow to Saddam. This foolish policy blew up in our faces
when Saddam attacked Kuwait.
Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Two Bushes Failed
Us.
PBS Frontline program quoted Bernard Trainor, the author of the
book The General's War: "One of the basic problems at the outset of the crisis
was that the administration was convinced of the rectitude of its policy towards
Iraq, which was to extend them credits and to try to build bridges to Iraq to
change their behavior. They knew Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but [they
clung to] the idea, 'If we build bridges, maybe we can change this fellow's way
of doing business.'" See: The Gulf
War, Frontline/BBC transcript 1, January 20, 1996:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
Trainor further explained Bush's misguided policy: "Since the end
of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, the [Bush] Administration had been focused on the
danger of fundamentalism in Iran and its spread. And it sought to balance that
off by building bridges to Iraq. [So] when Saddam Hussein started to threaten
Kuwait, the administration had a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact
that their bridge-building policy was a failure." See: The Gulf
War, Frontline/BBC interviews, January 20, 1996:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/trainor/1.html
Many praise Bush for his handling of the Persian Gulf War. All he
did was clean up his own mess. Bush's bungling actually caused that war when his
Secretary of State James A. Baker III directed April Glaspie, Bush's ambassador
to Iraq, to assure Saddam the United States would take no position against Iraq
in any intra-Arab dispute:
The Christian Science Monitor reports, "Eight days before his Aug.
2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then
America's ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two
countries before Iraq went to war." This was a "green light" for the Iraqi
attack.
Transcripts show Glaspie told Saddam: "We have no opinion on your
Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James]
Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not
associated with America." See: 'WHATEVER HAPPENED
TO...?' US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie?, Carleton Cole, Christian
Science Monitor, May 27, 1999:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm.
Colin Powell, the man Americans depend on to moderate and inform
George W. Bush's foreign policy also bungled badly regarding Iraq. Frontline
showed Powell and Dick Cheney admitting their befuddlement:
Gen. Colin Powell said: "My intelligence officer came in and
started to show me satellite photos and other intelligence which suggested an
Iraqi buildup in the southern part of Iraq. It wasn't immediately troubling
because it was just a buildup within their own country. It did not have the
backup that one would expect to see for an invasion of another country." See: The Gulf
War, Frontline/BBC transcript 1, January 20, 1996:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
Powell and Bush ignored Saddam's months-long deployment of troops
along the Kuwaiti border. Powell overlooked Iraqi announcements which called
Kuwait its lost province. To Iraq, Kuwait was part of "their own country."
Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expressed his own befuddlement: "We really
needed some time to come to grips with this basic, fundamental question of our
strategic assessment of what this meant. Did it matter that he'd taken Kuwait?"
See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
Clearly these men - the cream of the crop in both Bush
administrations - had no clue what was going on, and no idea what to do about
it. Cheney was so confused he "needed time" to decide whether or not the US
should do anything at all before he could even being pondering which response
was best. This after he and Bush broke US laws and lied to Congress supplying
Saddam with equipment Iraq used in the invasion! Bush I is to blame for the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the "Black Hawk Down" atrocity in Somalia, as well as
the failure to follow through on promises to support Iraqis Bush called upon to
topple Saddam.
Republicans refuse to face facts or change with the times. Their
continued instinctive embrace of despots abroad undermines our national
security. Republicans also consistently misread events and mismanage our
reactions as they favor special interests at the expense of American national
interests. Democrats do better.
Democrats advance legitimate US interests in partnership with our
allies. Republicans fail by going it alone and insulting our allies. After
Clinton brought together the Israelis and Jordan, Lebanon and Palestinians
engaged in peace talks, Bush loudly announced withdrawal from the Middle East
peace process, as well as several international treaties and negotiations. After
President Clinton focused on terrorism, Bush lost all focus and ignored all
warnings.
While Republicans Fought Clinton, Clinton Fought
Terrorists.
The Washington Post confirmed, "The Clinton administration ordered
the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent
station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place
Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of
receiving the order." See: The
Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, Barton
Gellman, Washington Post, December 19, 2001; Page A01:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18¬Found=true
President Clinton dedicated himself to neutralizing bin Laden, but
Republicans in the Congress thwarted his efforts. Republican Senators like Phil
Gramm blocked legislation to freeze al Qaeda financial assets because special
banking interests told them to, and they opposed recommendations to improve
airline safety out of deference to the airline lobbyists. Still, the Democrats
didn't stop trying to keep Americans safe from terror. The Clinton
Administration warned the Taliban that America would hold them personally
responsible if Osama bin Laden attacked us. The Washington Post reports:
"Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's
counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban.
He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration
known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with
him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we
will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you
understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government
[if] you're protecting him, you become responsible for his crimes.'"
Clinton's third-ranking State Department official Thomas Pickering
"met with Mullah Ahmed Jalil, Taliban deputy foreign minister [and] told him, as
Sheehan had told his boss, that 'people who are helping other people kill
Americans are our enemies and should consider themselves as such.'" See: Clinton's War
on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, Barton Gellman, Washington Post,
December 19, 2001; Page A01:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62776-2001Dec18?
Bush and Cheney - Back to the Failed Policies of the
Past.
Republicans "Go it Alone" and cause more problems than they solve.
W. Bush is no exception to that rule. Once in power, the Bush / Cheney
administration withdrew the Clinton safeguards, and entered into negotiations
with the Taliban to construct a pipeline. Clinton directed his national security
team to brief the incoming Bush advisors on the al Qaeda threat. Bush, Cheney,
Rice and the rest pointedly ignored this.
Rather than address terrorism the Bush Occupation focused
exclusively on the $trillion wasting, scientifically unfeasible and
strategically unnecessary "Star Wars" missile shield. This is because of
historic Republican obsession with oil and overpriced military boondoggles.
Other articles at this site prove the Bush administration
dropped the ball leading up to 9/11:
http://www.mikehersh.com/cat_index_9.shtml.
While there's no evidence to indicate George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or any
other Republican leader colluded in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, their gross
negligence left us wide open to attack. Their efforts to blame the Clinton
Administration for their failures ring false. They ordered the CIA, FBI and
others to "back off" their investigations of suspected bin Laden terrorists,
including two of Osama bin Laden's brothers operating in Northern Virginia. Our
enemies perceived this as weakness and struck. See: Call it
9-11Gate: http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020517Outrage3.html.
Intelligence agents reveal Bush turned a "blind eye" to terrorism
and this led to 3,100 American deaths. Because of Bush's orders, top FBI
officials ignored warnings efforts to investigate and arrest the terrorists who
later hijacked and flew our planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley confirms this, and the efforts to cover it up.
See: Demand Public
Congressional 9/11 Investigation:
http://www.bushoccupation.com/welcolumn.html.
After the worst lapse national security disaster in the history of
the US, Bush insists he and the confounded retreads from his father's failed
policy team are qualified to clean up the mess they and his father left behind.
But Bush, Cheney and Powell
made gross mistakes which left us open to attack. This is hardly a team
which inspires confidence. If this were an isolated failure, Republicans might
stake some claim to marginal competence. However, time and again Saddam's,
Al-Qaeda's and other enemies' well-telegraphed moves shocked the best and
brightest the Republicans have to offer.
Bush's neglect after Clinton's leadership made the Palestinian / Israeli
conflict explode into unprecedented violence. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
instability there made our efforts to combat al Qaeda much more difficult. Bush
began focusing on bin Laden in Afghanistan, but inexplicably his attention
faltered. Failure of will there let top al Qaeda terrorists escape.
Having learned nothing, Bush shifted focus to favor a hair-brained PNAC project
and a personal family vendetta against Saddam Hussein to the exclusion of all
else. Bush's threats to invade Iraq accomplished everything the US needed to
keep us safe - Saddam was allowing inspectors free reign, he was suffering
terminal humiliation, we could have worked for a smooth transition to new Iraqi
leadership.
But Bush refused to take yes for an answer. His bellicose unreasoning
policies alienated our allies and further destabilized this volatile region -
setting back our efforts against terrorism and rendering us less safe. Now, Bush
has our troops stuck in a quagmire dying every day, Bush is spending untold
$billions we don't have - and all for nothing. This is textbook Republican
short-sightedness.
"Bush's Brain" Karl Rove tell us we should count on Republicans to
protect us. Rove is dead wrong. His claims fly in the face of reality. As shown
by their long unbroken string of indefensible unmitigated ineptitude,
Republicans do not know what they're doing regarding national defense or
diplomacy. They have no excuse for these failures. It's not like Republicans
didn't have shining examples to follow.
After Carter's human rights, international cooperation and Camp
David peace triumphs, 12 years of Republican administrations failed to support
peace anywhere on the planet. After President Clinton worked tirelessly for
peace in Ireland, the Middle East, and around the world - a proud legacy in
marked contrast to repeated Republican failures - Bush simply walked away from
the table.
This is because Carter, Clinton and Democrats understand
cooperation promotes international peace, and peace promotes international
commerce. The United States relies on a peaceful world to prosper. Republicans
don't know or don't care about the sad history of bullies - empires which once
stood strong - toppled by their own hubris and folly. That's why we cannot rely
on Republicans to promote peace or prosperity. We cannot rely on Republicans to
keep us safe.
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com
and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast
any material at this site, provided you identify the source as
MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts
or other written reproductions must
include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.
|