Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats slam Bush on security, seek intelligence 'czar'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:16 PM
Original message
Democrats slam Bush on security, seek intelligence 'czar'
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrats accused the White House of "flat-out lies" in making its case for war in Iraq (news - web sites), part of presidential challenger John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign shift to high-caliber attacks on incumbent Republican President George W. Bush (news - web sites).



In coordinated attacks on what they described as a failed White House security policy, Kerry's top lieutenants criticized Bush for "massive" failures in safeguarding the US homeland since the September 11, 2001 attacks, just days before an independent probe was to call for a top-to-bottom revamp of US intelligence.


Former US Senator Max Cleland, in a conference call to reporters with Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe, dismissed the Bush administration's arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, saying Congress and the US public was "flat-out lied to."


And during a separate telephone conference call, two top Democrats in Congress said intelligence lapses highlighted in the report to be released Thursday by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States underscore the need for a change in leadership at the White House.

~snip~
more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&nc...

:) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'd settle for an intelligent czar. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Go Vote on this story - AVG rating is 1.9 right now. . .very low
it is being freeped
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mctrotter5 Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Voted..must be hit by freeps..way low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mctrotter5 Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. MiGawd, could it be that our Demos are able to come out swinging!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. No Czar needed there is already a committee to do this job
No offense to all my democratic friends who want to push forward the obvious mistakes of the Bush Administration...

But, since the mid 1900's there has been a national security council that is supposed to function in this role.

Condi is a perfectly good bad example of someone leading the President's national security council, but that doesn't make a czar the answer. Reducing viewpoints, complexity, and redundancy is probably not a really great idea when it comes to trying to consider all perspectives in order to figure out what is known only in pieces.

I don't have a problem with maintaining 3-4 "intelligence" organizations. I can imagine at least that many special roles for domestic, traditional military, international political and international economic intelligence needs. Having a "czar" to coordinate things isn't going to make any of those 4 project areas perform better. And having a czar IS going to force one point of view... In the sense of the need for checks and balances I'd rather have multiple roles and different assigned responsibilities which must be reconciled by a team of knowledgeable and competent advisors who are willing to speak to all branches of government.

Obviously that leaves a lot of room for advisory misadventures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Exactly--it's a meaningless substitute for an actual policy
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 05:42 PM by DrBB
One of those "We must be SEEN to be doing something" ideas. If the position of "Intelligence Czar" ends up being as effective as the Education Czar, or god forbid the Drug Czar, we're all doomed.

On edit: I don't have a problem with maintaining 3-4 "intelligence" organizations.

Which is what the Brits have. The US on t'other hand, has vastly more of 'em. The number 15 seems to be stuck in my head for this, but it might be some even more ridiculous number like 35 or something....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Rated it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Its current average rating is 2.24 with 140 vote N/T
:kick:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. A talking point!
Yay! It seems we've found a talking point. Now if only other Democrats jump on the bandwagon, repeat after me: "Bush flat-out lied to take us to war with Iraq." :P

Terry, it seems you do have a backbone after all. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. The last 2 heads of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, republicans
Richard Shelby and Pat Roberts, were complete failures.

Shelby fought tooth and nail to make sure that President Clinton's nominee for CIA Director, Tony Lake, was not nominated. Shelby and his committee then easily confirmed George Tenet as CIA Director.

Republicans obviously cannot be trusted with overseeing Intelligence. And, as we can plainly see by what has happened on 9/11 and in Iraq, they cannot be trusted in matters of defense and national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC