Did Republicans appease the terrorists under Clinton?
Back in 1996, according to AMERICAblog, Republicans in Congress blocked President Clinton's efforts to expand wiretapping and to deal with Osama bin Laden.
This is an important post on an important story. Read it. Since 9/11, Republicans have run on terrorism, more specifically on the exploitation of the issue of terrorism, and have generally been extremely successful. More, Republicans have successfully spun the narrative, still prevalent in the news media, that they are tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security while their opponents are cut-and-run doves who would expose America to more 9/11s and essentially the whole world to the omnipresent and ominous threat of "Islamofascism" (or whatever they prefer to call it and define it on any given day).
But the spin is not the truth and the narrative has been nothing but an elaborate lie. Hold the Republicans accountable for what they've really done, not what they claim they've done, this November, and do not let them get away with spinning the narrative any longer. It was Clinton, a Democrat, who recognized and sought to deal with the threat of global terrorism, the terrorism of al Qaeda and its ilk, long before 9/11. It was the Republican leadership in Congress that stopped him, that willfully and irresponsibly ignored the threat and left America exposed.
Now, which party exactly is tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security? Which party tried to do something about terrorism even before it became a key electoral issue while the other has callously exploited it to win elections only after it could effectively be turned into a partisan issue in the wake of 9/11? Which party focused on terrorism both at home and abroad well before, and in anticipation of, 9/11 while the other has more recently pursued a disastrous military misadventure in Iraq that has nothing to do with terrorism and that has severely weakened America's ability to deal with terrorism?
Which party should be leading America through these troubled times? On terrorism and national security, and in contrast to the prevailing spin, the Democrats are the clear choice.
This is an important post on an important story. Read it. Since 9/11, Republicans have run on terrorism, more specifically on the exploitation of the issue of terrorism, and have generally been extremely successful. More, Republicans have successfully spun the narrative, still prevalent in the news media, that they are tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security while their opponents are cut-and-run doves who would expose America to more 9/11s and essentially the whole world to the omnipresent and ominous threat of "Islamofascism" (or whatever they prefer to call it and define it on any given day).
But the spin is not the truth and the narrative has been nothing but an elaborate lie. Hold the Republicans accountable for what they've really done, not what they claim they've done, this November, and do not let them get away with spinning the narrative any longer. It was Clinton, a Democrat, who recognized and sought to deal with the threat of global terrorism, the terrorism of al Qaeda and its ilk, long before 9/11. It was the Republican leadership in Congress that stopped him, that willfully and irresponsibly ignored the threat and left America exposed.
Now, which party exactly is tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security? Which party tried to do something about terrorism even before it became a key electoral issue while the other has callously exploited it to win elections only after it could effectively be turned into a partisan issue in the wake of 9/11? Which party focused on terrorism both at home and abroad well before, and in anticipation of, 9/11 while the other has more recently pursued a disastrous military misadventure in Iraq that has nothing to do with terrorism and that has severely weakened America's ability to deal with terrorism?
Which party should be leading America through these troubled times? On terrorism and national security, and in contrast to the prevailing spin, the Democrats are the clear choice.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
7:58 AM
1 Comments:
I think if Clinton had gone after the Taliban and Bin Louden in the 90's all the Republicans would have apposed it.
By
curiousgemini, at 5:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home