Republicans Still Can't Keep Us Safe
By Mike Hersh, Nov 17, 2003

It's a Staple of American Politics: Republicans are "Strong on Defense."
The Problem is, It's Simply Not true. Republicans Can't Keep Us Safe.

Republican inability to run the economy is well established in other articles at the MikeHersh.com site, but their failure to conduct diplomacy and national security policy is less widely understood. The facts show Republicans are every bit as bad at defense as they are at economics.

Republicans often accuse Democrats of "decimating" defense and claim competence in matters military. The facts expose this as simply inaccurate. When it comes to keeping America safe, Republicans are absurdly overrated.

Republicans tend to "go it alone" and cause more problems than they solve. W. Bush is no exception to that rule. Rather than address terrorism - or any other pressing national security concern - the Bush Occupation focused exclusively on the $trillion-wasting, scientifically unfeasible and strategically unnecessary "Star Wars" missile shield. This catastrophic miscalculation is typical of Republican failure.

Reagan sent weapons to Iran and Iraq and empowered terrorists. This got more than 500 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists. When we lost 241 marines in Beirut, Reagan and cut and ran. Then he attacked tiny Grenada. Reagan threatened to bomb the USSR in "a joke" and actually bombed Libya for bombing a night club in Germany, something Syria did, which provoked a counter-attack on the Pan Am flight downed over Scotland.

Although his fans claim Reagan won the Cold War, no matter how many times they repeat it, that remains utter nonsense. We're fortunate Reagan's doddering extremism didn't cause World War III. See: The Real Reagan Legacy: http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

President Clinton dedicated himself to neutralizing bin Laden, but Republicans in the Congress thwarted his efforts. Still, the Democrats didn't stop trying to keep Americans safe from terror. The Clinton Administration warned the Taliban America what would happen to them if Osama bin Laden attacked us.

The Washington Post reports Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator threatened the Taliban in an official communication: "If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable.'" See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2001; Page A01: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62776-2001Dec18?

Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Two
Generations of Bushes Failed Us

Upon taking the presidency, George H. W. Bush continued and expanded illegal, illogical arms deals with Iraq. Bush I and Cheney as his Secretary of Defense lied under oath to Congress in official documents and sworn testimony. They lied about the types of equipment sent to Iraq and also violated restrictions on trade with terrorist states and on the type of "dual use" equipment - useful for civilian and military - sent to Iraq. This foolish policy cost taxpayers $billions and blew up in our faces when Saddam attacked Kuwait. See: The Gulf War, Frontline/BBC transcript 1, January 20, 1996: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html

If this were an isolated failure, Republicans might stake some claim to marginal competence. However, time and again Republicans missed or misunderstood Saddam's, al Qaeda's and our other enemies' moves. See: Republicans Can't Keep Us Safe - http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_Cant_Keep_Us_Safe.shtml

Somalia was a Bush operation and just another Republican military failure, like Reagan sending the marines to Beirut and doing nothing against terrorists who killed more than 500 Americans. The first Bush sent the American forces into Somalia without the proper support. He dropped the mess into Clinton's lap when the new administration took over. If Clinton had sent our forces to Somalia, "Black Hawk Down" would have been Clinton's fault. But despite reflexive Republican efforts to blame Clinton for everything, Bush I is at fault for those brave troops we saw dragged through Mogadishu.

Bush II is even worse than Reagan or his father, leaving us open to attack on 9/11 and then sending our troops into harms way in Iraq on the basis of wrong "intelligence" and lies to serve as glorified rent-a-cops for Halliburton. Bush and the GOP have tried to slash Veterans Administration funding, which was beaten back by concerted efforts by the brave VFW members.

Bush's choice for Homeland Security Director, Tom Ridge tried to cut back on Air Marshals - an open invitation to a repeat of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. And worst of all Bush's horrendous failures left us vulnerable on that awful day. Despite Republican efforts to blame Clinton, Bush let 9/11 happen.

Bush has no excuse for these gross failures. President Clinton increased anti-terror spending by 1000%, and he froze al Qaeda assets. Clinton's law enforcement team rounded up, tried and convicted the first World Trade Center bombers, and gathered information to protect us against other attacks - thwarting the millennium bombers and other attackers.

The Clinton military bombed al Qaeda training camps - barely missing Osama bin Laden. Clinton deployed two Los Angeles attack subs to watch over the Taliban and he intimidated them into keeping al Qaeda on a tight leash. It worked.

The Clinton team prepared a battle plan to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but didn't complete it in time to finish the operation before Bush would take office. So Clinton had his staff - led by Sandy Berger - brief the Bush team, trusting them to keep Americans safe by eliminating the al Qaeda threat. This was the worst mistake in Clinton's life.

Clinton administration officials including National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Clinton's Anti-terrorism "Czar" Richard Clarke impressed upon Bush's national security team that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were mortal threats to American lives. Unfortunately, those warnings went unheeded.

According to Time Magazine: "Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late." Clarke, a veteran of the first Bush administration began working on "an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda" and he prepared "a strategy paper" he presented to Berger and other Clinton national security officials on December 20, 2000. However by then it was too late to implement a major invasion against Osama bin Laden.

Time quotes a former senior Clinton aide saying "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on January 20, 2001. That wasn't going to happen." Berger told incoming National Security Advisor Rice, "I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is." Berger added "The Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.'" Unfortunately Rice paid so little attention to these critical warnings, at first she said she didn't recall even meeting with Berger!

Time reports that Berger was not present at the meeting when Clarke explained the plan to "senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations [who] say that Clarke had a set of proposals to 'roll back' al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, 'Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.'" There's more:

Clarke's proposals called for the 'breakup' of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to 'eliminate the sanctuary' where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime.

See: "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" MICHAEL ELLIOTT, Time Magazine, Aug. 04, 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html#

The Bush administration kept Clarke on as a top anti-terrorist advisor. In a side-bar report, Time notes: "January 25, 2001, Clarke presents a plan to his new bosses urging an aggressive five-point program to take the fight to al-Qaeda, calling for air attacks on all training camps in Afghanistan," which the Bush team ignored.

"On May 8, 2001, Bush create[d] a new Office of National Preparedness for terrorism and promises a government review, led by Dick Cheney, into the consequences of a domestic attack. It never happens." In fact, Cheney failed to call a meeting for preparedness against terror in time to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

According to Time, on "July 5, 2001, Despite a quiet Fourth of July, the CIA warns Bush that imminent strikes are still possible. He asks Rice to find out what the agencies are doing about al-Qaeda. Clarke holds meetings with CIA, FBI, Pentagon and State officials. He also tells key domestic agencies to be prepared for an attack." They ignore him.

This although Bush and top Bush officials were warned about possible hijacking terror attacks on "July 10, 2001, Phoenix, Ariz., FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends headquarters a memo about Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school, theorizing al-Qaeda could be trying to infiltrate U.S. aviation [and CIA Director] Tenet brief[ed] Bush in Crawford, Texas, with an analytic report on al-Qaeda. It is based largely on old intelligence but raises hijackings as a possible threat," on August 6, 2001.

As al Qaeda prepared for the massive attacks, Bush and his top officials didn't. Bush ignored the threats and took a long vacation. As Time reports, "September 4, 2001, The Principals' Committee - Cheney, Rice and other top national-security officials - [finally held] its first terrorism meeting. They debate[d] Clarke's plan, decide[d] to implement it in a phased approach and send it to Bush." Of course by then it was too late. The Bush Administration's tentative, impotent moves came months late and $millions short.

Time reports, "September 9, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld threaten[ed] to urge a veto if the Senate proceeds with a plan to divert $600 million from missile defense to counter-terrorism." That threat, mere hours before the fateful day, expresses Bush Defense and National Security priorities in a nutshell: $Billions for "Star Wars" to protect us from the defunct USSR, nothing to protect us against the real threat - terrorism.

See "Timeline: Blown Chances," Time Magazine, Aug. 04, 2002:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

For months - from the time they took office in January to September on the very eve of destruction - the Bush administration ignored critically important evidence and advice. They disregarded Clarke, Berger, the Hart-Rudman anti-terrorism commission, the Gore airline safety findings, the FBI, the CIA, our allies and other warnings. They obsessed on "Star Wars," tax cuts, and helping Enron and other big contributors write national energy policy while ignoring the known, growing threat from terrorism.

Bush refused to use the battle plan, and ignored all the warnings. He halted FBI and CIA investigations of bin Laden's terror network in the US. Bush pulled back the attack subs and reached out to the Taliban. Then he went on vacation. Our enemies saw Bush's weakness and attacked, killing 3,100 Americans.

Sure the Clinton military did well in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, performing beyond all expectations, but Bush is attacking the wrong people in the wrong places. Bush eliminated bin Laden's secular enemy Saddam in Iraq and this only helps terrorism flourish. See: Bush is doing what bin Laden wants.

Of course the Clinton military deserves our support, but Bush and the Republicans refuse to back our troops. The Bush Defense Department can't even treat our troops with dignity or respect. While Bush's blunders keep getting them in harms way and 100s are hurt and killed, the Republicans try to cut their combat pay and the Veterans' Administration budget. Only a heated effort by the Veterans of Foreign Wars staved off that Bush back-stab. See: Who Supports Our Troops? Updated - http://www.mikehersh.com/Who_supports_our_troops.shtml.

It gets even worse. Bush's DoD is making troops pay for their body armor and even for their food while they're recovering in the hospital. Incredibly some of our troops in battle zones haven't even been paid in months.

Toppling Cheney and Rumsfeld's old business partner Saddam is all well and good, but to what end? Bush and company never had a plan for the post-war phase and they are misleading us in the aftermath even as they misled us into war.

Once more, Republicans are failing to lead on military matters. Removing Saddam's regime without making any provision for the aftermath let al Qaeda's radical Islamic allies rise up in Iraq. Bush made it much easier for al Qaeda to recruit and kill Americans the well over 100,000 American troops and bogged down in Iraq. Bush also squandered $billions we need to protect our bridges, atomic power plants, dams, and more.

"Bush's Brain" Karl Rove claims Americans 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 security, defense or diplomacy. In short, Republicans still can't 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.