Bush: Democrats Weak On Terror

President Says A Congress Under Democratic Control Would Weaken U.S. Stance On Terrorism

(AP)  President Bush took a swat at his critics Tuesday, bluntly declaring that if Democrats take control of Congress, the nation's stance against terrorism will soften.

He scolded Democrats who voted against his warrantless wiretapping program to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists and legislation to detain, interrogate and question high-value terrorist suspects.

"On each of these programs, the Democrats have said they share our goals. But when it comes time to vote, they consistently oppose giving our personnel the tools they need to protect us," Bush said at a $400,000 breakfast fundraiser for Rep. Richard Pombo, held 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay area.

"Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways. They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out," he said.

In the home stretch of campaigning for the Nov. 7 elections, Bush is using his $2.3 million fundraising sprint through Nevada, California, Arizona and Colorado to try to portray distinct differences between Democrats and Republicans, especially on waging the war against terror.

Bush said the CIA program to interrogate high-target terrorist suspects has helped foil attacks, and he asked Democrats who voted against the detainee legislation to explain their opposition to voters.

"If they feel we are safer without this program, the Democrats in the United States Senate need to explain to the American people which of the attacks that the CIA program stopped would they have been willing to let go forward," Bush said.

He is trying to frame next month's elections around the economy and national security, but he has to talk loudly to be heard over the static caused by setbacks recently suffered by the Republican Party.

The White House has been seeking to rebut a recent intelligence report that suggests the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists and journalist Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial," that suggests Bush has not been completely upfront about the severity of the security situation in Iraq.

And on Capitol Hill, House Republican leaders are being asked about how long they knew about former Republican Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate communications with teenage males who worked as pages. After the fundraiser, Bush visited a local school where he said he was "shocked and dismayed" by Foley's behavior and said he supports House Speaker Dennis Hastert's call for a full investigation.

Later, Bush was attending a $600,000 fundraiser in El Dorado Hills for Rep. John Doolittle and then raising $1.3 million at a Republican National Committee event in the Los Angeles area.

About 150 anti-Bush demonstrators protested across from the site of the Pombo fundraiser. Both Pombo and Doolittle easily survived primary challenges this year from opponents who criticized them for their connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

One presidential action was tucked into Bush's Tuesday schedule, perhaps to help the various campaigns defray the cost of getting the president to the political events. Bush signed the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act. Pombo sponsored the House version of the bill, which aims to help landowners restore and manage fish and wildlife habitats on private property.

[energyecon]

With a record of unmitigated abysmal failure the only play left is to attack.

[mdmx66]

Bush has done a good job of protecting us. That is irrefutable.

[talsian]

Bush's blatantly pro-oil stance means that he is for fully funding the terrorists. I don't see how anyone could be worse for battling terror.

[sandy5274]

How can President George W Bush claim to be so
"tough on Terrroists" when he failed to act on
warnings of the coming 9-11 WTC attack,failed to
secure our borders,ports,chemical and nuclear
plants,and transportation system,and fialed to
get Osama bin Laden?

So it looks like to me that it's George W Bsuh
and thr Republican Party who are the ones,who
are soft on terrorism here,face reality people!

[mdmx66]

Talsian, Bush's pro-oil stance? What's that mean?

[jpesot]

Bush has been a disaster on all fronts ... and his SIT AND SPIN strategy in Iraq has made us less safe not more safe. Afganistan is getting worse, and Bush's total inaction on terrorism prior to 9/11 ensured that their terror plot succeeded -- the only action they did take prior to 9/11 was to marginalize Richard Clark which was a huge mistake. For Bush to attack dems on terror is ridiculous ... any fool could attact the wrong country ... and that's what this fool did.

[pakaal]

Democrats weak? As weak as Condi's first defence on the July 10, 2001 briefing from the CIA director about impending attacks ("I don't recall the meeting") Or perhaps as weak as her second defense ("I don't recall a sense of urgency in the meeting I don't remember happening")?

In six years of Republican rule we've gone from a justified war in Afghanistan to find the mastermind and destroy the organization behind the 9/11 attacks (anyone out there remember Osama Bin Laden?) to declaring a war on Iraq - a country with no identifiable ties to the attacks - we've closed down the operation assigned to find Bin Laden, been told by the president himself he's "not a priority", we've got Republican senators calling for Afghan officials to allow the Taliban into the government, and Bush is saying Democrats would make us weaker? Ludicrous. Democrats are calling for a timed withdrawal from Iraq (who according to their own citizens want us out), a refocus on Afghanistan and a refocus on Bin Laden, all things supported by a mjority of the American people, by the way. Yes, a sensible plan, who'd have thought?

We've been hearing how bad things might be under Democrat rule, but judging by the multiple administration and congressional fiascoes including Iraq, Katrina, Abramoff, now Foley, and everything inbetween, they sure couldn't get any more misguided than they are right now.

[www.dmocrats.org]

9-11 happened on Bush's watch.

Despite the GOP propaganda calling others weak on national security and defense the GOP appears the only party that has actually DEMONSTRATED their weakness on national defense and national security whe nthe planes hit the towers and the pentagon on Sept 11, 2001.

The myth of GOP superiority on national security EXPLODED with the passengers who hit the towers and the pentagon on Sept 11,201.

[observantx]

More smoke and mirrors from the Bushies. The truth is they were utterly and completely caught flat footed on 9/11, after being told about it by seasoned and skilled professionals and then spinning that "I don't recall....." How craven can you get?

The real problem is that for 6 years, nobody in the media ever challenged the spin and lies of this administration. The whole WMD, Atta and Saddam, yellowcake in Niger, mobile germ labs, slam dunk, greeted as liberators, unarmored HumVees, and even more was given a free pass. The press just bleated polite thank yous for whatever crumbs the Rovettes were handing out.

Now Rumsfeld is digging in his heels and refusing to do the honorable thing, resigning. In the past, if an honorable Roman general has messed up a war this bad, he would have fallen on his sword to atone. No such luck with this bunch.

Finally, some in the media have begun to grow some spine. And that's why the decibel level from our fearless leader has gone up.

By the way, how convenient the price of gas drops and the Dow breaks a record high. Please don't sell yourself for a tank of cheap gas. These power hungry liars have to go!

VOTE THEM AND THE REST OF THE ROVETTES OUT!!

[gdmoore2]

Bush and the Republicans are losing Iraq and Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. If you want to see helicopters evacuating the last Americans from the tops of buildings in the Green Zone, then stick with Bush. As Bob Woodward says, Bush is in denial. Complete with Henry Kissinger, it is Vietnam all over again.

[www.dmocrats.org]

Why did Bush bring the Taliban to Texas early in 2001 to negotiate deals for oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan?

Why did Bush threaten to bomb the Taliban into the stone age in July 2001 when the Taliban wouldn't accept any deals with Bush for pipelines?

9-11 appeared as blowback for failed Bush-Taliban secret oil diplomacy. Bush provoked the 9-11 attacks.

www.dmocrats.org

[laneff]

The policy from 9/11 to present in regard to terrorism both domestically and internationally has been a mixed bag of hit and miss with more glaring problems than progress. Bush claims Democrats are weak on terror, yet in my singular opinion I believe there is no definitive party that corners understanding of terroristic tendency in any form. That is the reason finding a true voice, one that truly can seek peace in the midst of war, would be nearly impossible to find. There is no soldier who wants war. There is no civilian who wants terror. Yet there is no human who knows one thing about the best way to bring peace to a bunch of squabbling nations, cultures and sects who can do nothing more than yell and shoot their enemies before asking questions and seeking true answers. Until each of us universally believes there is such a thing as an olive branch for peace, there will be no such move toward it.

[drgoodwin12]

Democrats are not weak on terror,just smarter.You cannot fight terrorism with a determent policy,one that prevents ordinary people from becoming terrorist.You cannot make deals with President's like Musharaff who turn around and gives amnesty to the the taliban/Al queda in Pakistan or all of the Saudi ruling family that has done virtually nothing to help us.Finally you cannot invade a country(premediated 11 days into office) that becomes as the NIE report states a cause celebre for the terror recruitment.

[koshon]

The president of the United States is a liar. He lies consistently about the situation in Iraq. He lies consistently about the democrats. He lies about social security. He lies about medicare. He tells the truth about nothing. To him and the dems, up is down, black is white, in is out and truth is a lie. The Vice President is a liar. He tells the same lies Bush. Does. The Secretary of State is a liar. She tells the same lies and has selective amnesia. The secretary of defense lies along with being incompetent. The Attorney General lies and has no problem with violating the constitution. But, the republicans will vote republican in November anyway. Power is all that matters to them. Power and defeating the hated liberals. They hate liberals far more than they love their country. How in hell did we ever get in this condition?

[bellal-2009]

The Democrats are weak. They're too politically correct. They couldn't be hard nosed if they had to. What's Nancy Pelosi gonna swat those big bad terrorist's lil hannies.

[danstoned]

GW Bush was president on 9/11/01. Both he and his White House, filled to the brink with cronyism, were warned again and again prior to 9/11. What dod Condi Rice do? she went shopping. Ashcroft? He quit flying on commercial airliners. BUSH? He cowardly hid behind second graders while america was under attack. And the braindead still vote for these lying Republican'ts? Shame on the inbred american.

[bluestardad]

Bush
is weak on Truth! Don't believe him if he tells you the sun is up. Go Look!

[bluestardad]

This rush into an unnecessary Iraq war has by every account made America less safe and has squandered the good will and good name of America around the world while costing thousands upon thousands of lives and mortgaging our children%u2019s financial future. The War in Afghanistan has been mismanaged to the point that we are now facing an enemy who has reconstituted itself and received tactical training and experience in Iraq, the very war we started. The Republican Congress has failed to provide oversight on the Executive Branch which is their sworn constitutional duty, to the death and detriment of thousands of American lives and their families. Congress and the Administration will find it easy when ask for accountability of their leadership to fall back on their old party statements saying %u201CI do not recall that event%u201D%u2026 hoping to provide enough ambiguity to dodge the full impact of their lack of action and utter bungling ineptitude of even minimal oversight and leadership tasks. Now it seems that the Republican Congress has failed to even provide oversight on the Congressional Page program while turning a blind eye to a member of their party engaging in pedophilia just to maintain a seat in Congress for their party. It is time the American People stood up and Cut the Republicans out of office and Run them out of Washington on a Rail!...

Michael Boetjer
Captain U. S. Army
Double Blue Star Father

[mh4cbs1]

FDR: "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself".
Bush: "the only thing I have left to keep myself in power is fear itself"

Can you believe this so-called President?!?!? His real policies take advantage of ordinary hard-working citizens to enrich his super-wealthy base. So the only card he has left is to play the same old sickening act of exploiting 9-11 and keeping Americans scared and confused enough so they don't notice his con job.

[weri2bat100]

I believe that the biggest story of the century might result from new revelations into why Condolezza Rice brushed aside pre-intelligence warnings of a major terrorist strike months ahead of 9/11.

It raises serious questions into the timing and release of the Mark Foley story so close to the November elections. Some in the media have even questioned why so much detailed information about Foley is being provided before it is asked for.

If the Mark Foley story is being used as a smoke screen, and I believe it is; to divert media attention away from the Rice/Tenant story, it suggests that the truth would devastate the GOP and the administration. If the November elections give the Democrats control over both branches of the legislature, the impeachment process would be much easier.

Did the White House know about the terrorist's plot to attack the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon prior to 9/11 or is the administration culpable in some other way. Katrina certainly demonstrated the administrations inability to protect American citizens from catastrophic disaster.

The media needs to delve deeper into why Rice brushed aside warnings of a major terrorist attack, even if it turns out that the administration chose to look the other way.
Our nation deserves to know the truth.

[gslinger3]

Thank you Mr President for standing up to the weak on anything Democrats who continue to try to thwart, undermine and oppose your efforts in the war on terror. They would love nothing more than for us to lose this war. You are doing a great job and with your strong leadership we will prevail.
Keep doing what your doing!!!!

[cathaleen]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Instead of chasing the
past for blunders (which should be shared 50/50
by Dems and Reps), everyone should focus on getting our troops out of that hell-hole.

I think if all pols focused on this instead of sniping at each other and looking for ways to make each other look bad, we may get a handle o this mess in Iraq.

People wonder why our image around the world is so bad, just take a look in the mirror.

[janemcgreeve]

The President is right.

What are the solutions that the Democrats offer besides "Cut and Run" or want judicial trials for terrorists? What are they? Care to answer, Dems?

Oh yeah, they got rid of Joe Lieberman precisely because they have no answers except a sorry historical and hysterical record, including 8 years of "cup a feel" or having cigar parties with bimbo interns (say, Foley resigned - why didn't Clinton??) while Bin Laden was sharpening his knives.

[janemcgreeve]

Offer a solution, alphabetsoup jh6379.

What would you rather do, learn Arabic? Abide by the Sharia? Embrace Islam (you probably don't have a religious belief, so maybe that would do you good).

And of course blame Amerika and those Republicans.

Offer a solution instead of "cut and run" and pulling our boys who are doing the dirty work you refuse to do down. Or shut up.

[janemcgreeve]

Oh, its alphabet soup making excuses for perverts.

You laugh at the GOP and Foley, yet you cannot even clean up your own dung. Senator Byrd, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, the Clintons, and of course that paragon of virtue Ted Kennedy - the list goes on and on.

Clinton demonstrated lack of moral fibre and character, things that meant a lot to Americans in a different era, but obviously nothing to you and your equally clueless friends, jh. Remember too, Bin Laden was bombing embassies while Clinton was spinning. And what did your hero do? Bomb Belgrade.

Oh yeah, Clinton also broke laws. But hey, that's mighty fine for the Left. Go learn Sharia, kiddo, you're going to need it.

[getcentered]

Bush: %u201CDemocrats Weak On Terror%u201D

Is Bush saying *** like this new? I think I remember him saying it at least 100 times. We Americans are going to hear allot of this in the coming few months. The GOP/Republicans are going to repeat it again and again. Boring and meaningless.

It's a bunch of lies, plain and simple. I don't trust these GOP/Republicans a single bit.

They don't even know what it is to be a Republican. These guys are "Re-spend-cans", and spend again, and again.

The GOP/Republicans get NO clout on fighting terrorism because they put our troops in Iraq, and now thousands of them have died in a war that had nothing to do with terrorism.

[getcentered]

Oh yea, and "Cut and Run" too.

What a perfect little one liner for all the puppet GOP/Republicans to repeat over and over again in the name of the real president, Karl Rove.
What meaningless-ness. Ignorance.


If we don't vote these fools out in November then we will continue to die in the wrong wars.

[getcentered]

Oh yea, and "Cut and Run" too.

What a perfect little one liner for all the puppet GOP/Republicans to repeat over and over again in the name of the real president, Karl Rove.
What meaningless-ness. Ignorance.


If we don't vote these fools out in November then we will continue to die in the wrong wars.

[janemcgreeve]

I want to see the Democrats offer robust solutions to fighting the greatest threat since Hitler.

For our own and our childrens' sake.

Instead of prattling about Bush and talking appeasement, let's hear real solutions, not the hand-wringing of a pompous *** like Jimmy Carter or the BS of Clinton and Kerry.

Hate this President, but he chose ro strike back against Bin Laden after 9/11. His predecessor did NOTHING for eight years except demean the office of the Presidency and wag fingers at cameras. While the Khobar Towers, the Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole blew up.

Offer solutions instead of hot air and cowardice, please.

[janemcgreeve]

A true centerist would have supported and voted for Joe Lieberman. Instead of casting lies about the man and pulling him down so that you could elect another, yes, CUT AND RUNNER.

With your rants, so empty of substance but full of nonsense, you are about as centered as water, weak little sister.

[janemcgreeve]

speaking of garbage, that is all that you seem to be spewing jh.

What's with the alphabet soup? if you can't answer, then go back to reading your Koran.

[janemcgreeve]

Looks like the "If I Only Had A Brain" folks are out in force this afternoon. Always blame and rant, but heavens forbid that they offer solutions.

Lewinsky a "right wing plant"...tee hee. If that were only true, it just shows how Billy Pervert would fall for anything, just as long as it wasn't his own (Hillary).

[janemcgreeve]

Again, offer solutions instead of hot air, cowardice and lies, Bush-bashers and Dem clowns.

[janemcgreeve]

previous commentator - weak on brains. or common sense.

[drgoodwin12]

To bellaL,I am a democrat and first off I would have nuked every training camp in Afghanistan.Is that soft?Second I would not have invaded a country that had nothing do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the U.S..I would have concentrated on a campaign of deterrment of individuals from becoming terrorist,I would have shut down every terrorist web site.I also would have seized every known asset that the terror network has.In addition I would have invaded Pakistan and strategically bomb it.Is that soft on terror?

[janemcgreeve]

Goodwin,

I've seen your blah-blah stuff, and for the most part, it is pretty juvenile. However, you, of most of the sorry dems and Bush-bashers here, made the most sense. Unfortunately your hero Clinton was not of that timbre. He sent a few score tomahawks WITHOUT nuke warheads on them to hit a couple of virtually empty camps AFTER he had given the Pakis a half-day warning so that elements in Musharraf's government could alert their roach pals.

Contrast that with the day-to-day bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade by the Clinton-Albright-Burglar-Clark team that resulted in the death of over 2000 Serbs, mostly civilians. And yet you have the temercity to urge us to vote Democratic.

Who should we vote for? A John Kerry who dissed his fellow servicemen and DID Give aid and comfort to the enemy? A Hillary Clinton who couldn't keep order or decency in her own household? A Jimmy Carter whom in his cowardice helped sow the seeds of Islamoextremism 27 years ago. A Howard Dean or a Ned Lamont? Who, sir? Wes Clark - Maybe, if he hadn't subscribed to the Dem Doctrine of Appeasement. Joe Lieberman, sure, but not only has he been knocked out of your party but is insulted by those who don't remember what a true Democrat - a Humphrey, a Scoop Jackson, were.

Show a Democrat with guts, and a long-term strategy who won't play into the hands of the majority of the Democratic Party and maybe, just maybe, he'd get my vote. But not the sorry losers and slime that are out there now.

[janemcgreeve]

P.S. And of Iraq and Al Qaeda ties, Sorry, but I still don't subscribe to the Democratic fantasy that there were NO ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda before 9/11. Read Stephen Hayes "The Connection" never really refuted, or even Laurie Mylroie's - oh, but they're Zionist Neo-Con patsies the know-it-nots will say.

Read Bodansky. All of these groups - ALL OF THEM, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Baath, Al Qaeda - may have hated each other, but they hated America and Israel more. Atta did meet with Iraqui intelligence - NEVER REFUTED. The increase of Palestinian violence towards Israel before the 2000 elections occurred right after the Cole Bombing - and as Al Qaeda began planning 9/11. Coincidence? The kidnappings and killings in Gaza and along the Lebanon border took place as Iran prepared to defy UN sanctions. Coincidence? You hatemongers out there and appease-worts can tell me. I'm listening, unlike you.

[janemcgreeve]

Sorry, jh whatever that stands for - BUT THERE WERE.

You obviously don't know Jack about the Middle East, or how Islamic tribes in the past that were at each other's throats always rallied to confront the "Imperialists". Happened before, happened now.

Ever hear of Salman Pak? Better read up on that, kiddo.

And even your blessed Dems still can't figure out why Atta met with the Iraquis, or what they spoke about. Oh, all they can come up with is that there were NO Al Qaeda-Saddam ties. Without providing proof.

Believe everything your blessed Dems tell you, jh? I don't believe everything Bush or Cheney tell me, but I can tell you this, they mean to protect us much more than your hero(ines) will.

Read Jimmy Carter's new book when it comes out. This out-and-out coward is nowadays sucking up to Hamas and the PLO. I suppose in your world, they're nice guys too.