DNC national security plan

GoSlash27

New member
The Dems released their national security plan yesterday. The Republicans jumped on them saying that it lacked detail and was really just an election-year stunt. I agree with them for the most part.....but what I noticed is that for all the noise they make about the Dems not having a plan, they don't seem to have one themselves!
I have searched high and low all over the internet and I have yet to find a RNC National Security Policy. No plan on how to win the War on Terror (tm). No plan on how to win the war in Iraq.
I mean...it couldn't be that they've gotten so complacent with being the "national security party" that they're just coasting on public perception, could it?

I could be wrong, and hopefully somebody here knows what "the Plan" is.

FWIW, here's the overview of the Dem plan:

21st Century Military
To Ensure Unparalleled Military Strength and Honor our Troops, we will:


Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.


Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.


Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops -- active, reserve, and retired -- our veterans, and their families receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve.

Strengthen the National Guard, in partnership with the nation's Governors, to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.


War on Terror
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:


Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.


Homeland Security
To Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, we will:


Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.


Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.


Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.


Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need.


Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.
Iraq
To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:


Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.


Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.


Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Energy Independence
To Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil, we will:


Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.


Increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.
 
C'mon folks. Simple question. What is the RNC national security plan? You don't even have to explain it to me, a link would suffice.
 
I don't think a lot (if anything) has changed from their 2004 platform

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

I think the reason you're seening the DNC stuff is they need to establish an identity that differs from the GOP controlled government, so that's why they've published their "talking points." Not that either of these documents have a whole lot of actual meat to them.

The question I have for each and every one of the points in the Dem's plan is, "how does this get paid for, and how many more people/resources do you intend to put on the government payroll to make these things happen?"
 
Okay, so unless there's any objection let's assume that the '04 platform is still the RNC plan.

Question #1: Is the '04 RNC platform any less of a political "stunt" than the '06 DNC platform?
Question #2: Is the '04 RNC platform any more detailed than the '06 DNC platform?
 
Ahhh, . . . Chairman Dean and his computer makes for very funny reading.

It would almost be palatable if every other point was not in direct opposition of the positions put forth by the Clintons (him and her), . . . Gore, . . . Teddy from Mass, . . . and just about all the other "headliner" dems.

This is to say nothing about how it is to be funded, . . . one point alone adds several serious millions of dollars per day:

"Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies."

That document is not worth the cyberspace electrons that make it up. Course, . . . DNC, . . . what would one expect?

May God bless,
Dwight
 
The republicans have a national security plan. It goes like this...

1. Prevent people from taking pictures of public buildings, because no one except a terrorist would ever do such a thing.
2. Use Predator drones to surveil the interior of the U.S.
3. Hand out a huge contract for contingency detention camps, without specifying exactly why those detention camps might be necessary.
4. Let the NSA intercept any communications it wants.
5. The TSA.
6. Scale up the war on drugs, because drugs == terrorism.
7. Leave the border with Mexico largely unguarded, because those millions of people illegally entering the U.S. every year are all our friends.
 
Okay, so unless there's any objection let's assume that the '04 platform is still the RNC plan.

Question #1: Is the '04 RNC platform any less of a political "stunt" than the '06 DNC platform?

NO

Question #2: Is the '04 RNC platform any more detailed than the '06 DNC platform?

NO

But why would that surprise you? The only thing going on here is the Dems are simply looking for a way to attack the current leadership to differentiate themselves as having a better approach, albeit an UNTRIED approach to the current set of problems. The GOP has a history and initiatives over the last six years of what they can be expected to be consistent with. The Dems don't. So they need to specify what they would do differently than what the GOP has been doing. But like most untried plans, without some detail there's no telling what the trade-offs will be.

For example:
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

Sounds good...what's your approach? We'd like to do that now, but how? Hold a gun to their heads? Pull all our troops out and hope for the best? Encourage our allies how? Threats? Pleading? Promise not to make any more ethnic jokes about them??

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Well heck, if you've got the secret to this then let us know!!! Why have you been keeping this a secret? Let's just go eliminate him...why didn't WE think of that???

Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.

Guarantee?? Does that comes with a warrany? Do we taxpayers get our money back if this sort of thing happens again 200 years from now? What PROVEN strategy for success would you have had to handle Iraq or Afghanistan? What specific things are broken that you will fix in the intelligence community? C'mon...share it...we could use it now! Why wait??


Again..it's all about trying to find a set of platitudes that will differentiate them because they currently DON'T have much of an identity with the american population and they've spent more time criticizing than coming up with any real solutions for anything. Their identity varies with which Dem you happen to be seeing on TV at the time. For the GOP their identity is already established in GW.

So...go ahead...pick your poison.
 
Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.


Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.

What a complete joke! Talk about total BS. Look at how the Dems vote when it comes to military spending. Just one peek at their record will tell you that this "plan" is total BS. The Republicans are the ones that keep dumping money into the military, but they have no clue how to protect us and our borders. Most politicians are useless. What we really need is term limits to get these useless career politicians out of Washington.
 
Only problem is, about 50% (or more) of the Democrat national security plan is diametrically opposed to what the Democrats have been saying, doing and voting for/against for years. So now they are going to abandon their core "values?"

Nope. They are going to sing and dance for The Sheeple - tell 'em what they want to hear - until they get into office; then they are going to do what they always do, which is gut the military and play sugar daddy to every no-working, no-tax-paying voting block they can buy a vote from.:barf:
 
The plan would easily exceed the GNP. The idea of hiring, training, staffing, and equipping enough man-power to check 100% of port traffic is going to be huge.

The idea of equipping, training, and then making monies available to staff every shift for the Police and Firefighters is also going to be incredibly expensive.

Enlarging the military? Not from the Democrats. Too much money. New equipment? They just haven't seen the bill yet.

Double the Special Forces? How? The idea of Special Forces is to have a small number of truly elite soldiers. How elite depends on the quality of the soldier, and the amount of training received. We have open enrollment in many of these forces today. BUT, you have to succeed to belong. If you reduce the standards or training, they are special only in name.

Wouldn't it be better to upgrade the minimum training of the average soldier, sailor, or marine?

As it's been BOTH parties chipping away at the GI Bill ever since the Korean War, how do they equate this promise with fifty years of the opposite action?

Anybody who actually believes this crap needs to buy the Brooklyn Bridge ASAP.
 
Here's the GOP "plan" (or at least the closest thing I could find to one).
Strengthening Our Military

President Bush has increased defense spending by more than one-third – the most in a generation.
President Bush signed into law landmark legislation that better prepares our defense establishment to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A military that was designed for the challenges of the mid-to-late 20th century is being transformed into a lighter, more flexible, more agile, and more lethal force - one better able to deal with new threats to our national security.
Deploying A Missile Defense

The United States will soon deploy a functioning missile defense system to protect Americans from nuclear threats posed by rogue regimes - and will deploy the first land and sea-based system.
The United States is acting with the support and cooperation of Australia, Britain, Japan, and other nations to establish a missile defense capability with support sites on multiple continents.
Strengthening NATO

President Bush has been a leader in transforming NATO to make it effective in the 21st century and the global War on Terror.
The Alliance commands the International Security Assistance Force (consisting of more than 6,000 troops) that is helping secure and rebuild a free Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NATO's first mission outside of Europe.
NATO allies are contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and NATO leaders have agreed to help train Iraq's new security forces.
Supporting Military Families And Veterans

Since President Bush took office, basic pay for service members has increased by more than 20 percent - and the increase in payments for food and housing combined has reached 50 percent.
The President's budgets have allowed 2.5 million more veterans to enroll for health care; outpatient visits to increase from 44 million to 54 million; the number of prescriptions filled to increase from 98 million to 116 million; and 194 new community-based clinics to open.
Homeland Security

President Bush has nearly tripled homeland security discretionary funding.
More than $18 billion has been awarded to state and local governments to protect the homeland.
The Bush Administration developed a comprehensive National Strategy for Homeland Security, focused on six key areas: intelligence and warning; border and transportation security; domestic counterterrorism; protecting critical infrastructure; defending against catastrophic threats; and emergency preparedness and response.
For the first time, the President has made countering and investigating terrorist activity the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Bush Administration has transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks and increased its budget by 60 percent.
Continued Progress in Iraq

President Bush has ensured the safety of Americans by taking the fight to the enemy abroad before they have the opportunity to attack the homeland.
Victory in Iraq is vital is central to the Global War on Terror to ensure that those who would harm the United States suffer total defeat.
Sovereignty was restored to the Iraqi people and they held free elections. On June 28, 2004, Iraqis regained control of the governance of their country. Less than seven months later, in January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair and took place on time.

So there it is. The untried plan vs. the proven failure of a plan. What on earth makes the GOP think they deserve my vote based on their performance over the last few years? What makes them any better than the Dems on national security? What gives them the right to attack the DNC plan as a "stunt"?
Something does not compute.

I think 625 has illustrated the fundamental problem here: one of perception. The Dems are attacked as being anti-military spending, yet when they try to spend money on the military...they get attacked (as in this thread) or else they get voted down as in this statement
So which is it? Dems are wrong for not spending on national security or national security is too expensive? You can't have it both ways.
The Dems are attacked for "not having a plan" when by any account the ones who are doing the attacking either a) don't have a plan themselves b) have a plan but don't follow it, or c) have a plan that has been proven ineffective. Why on earth is that any better?

No, it's the *perception* that Dems are weak on defense and Reps are strong on defense when the reality is that there's very little that separates them from each other.
You want strong on defense, give me an old-school conservative but don't try to tell me the current crop of losers are the same thing.
 
No, it's the *perception* that Dems are weak on defense

Don't mix up facts with your perception. Simply check the voting records of current Dems since many of them have been in office probably longer than you have been alive. It's a FACT that they are "weak on defense".
 
So 625 what are the facts that say Democrats are weak on defense?

One of the things that this administration has Homeland Security & Customs doing to make America a safer place is confiscate the elderly persons medicine being imported from Canada because it isnt safe even though it may have been manufatured in America:rolleyes:

How can you say anybody has a plan, be it Democrat or Republican when illiegals come thru the borders like crap through a goose?
 
Simply check the voting records of current Dems ...

The problem is that I did. If they're weak on defense then by any measure the current crop of so-called "Republicans" are weaker.
Care to compare notes?
 
I think that you'll find that neither party has been able to institute their plan of action in the past sixty years. It was the dems who got us into Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and who helped to perpetuate the Gulf War situation. They were in power, and they did nothing startling to build-up the military. The terrorists existed during Bill Clinton's administration, and nothing positive was done, either.

I find it ludicrous that ANYONE with an IQ out of single digits believes that there's a whole lot of difference in the bottom line of either political party. They are there, first and foremost, to get themselves re-elected. To not shake the status quo. The rest is window-dressing. To believe that either group will make a real change just shows how well they fool the sheeple.
 
Don't mix up facts with your perception

Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's

President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.

http://www.factcheck.org/article153.html

Bush: "Reckless Defense Cuts"

The Bush campaign first rolled out this attack last February, even before Kerry had completely clinched the Democratic nomination. Bush has pursued this distorted portrayal relentlessly right through his final series of TV ads and mailings, accusing Kerry of opposing tanks, planes, helicopters, and even Humvees and body armor. It showed up in Zell Miller's keynote address attacking Kerry at the Republican convention, and in Republican mailings that were showing up last week in a number of key states. In West Virginia, for example, a Republican National Committee mailing claimed Kerry had "opposed weapons systems vital to winning the war on terror," and listed ten including the Apache helicopter, the Bradley fighting vehicle and the M-1 Abrams tank.

There's some truth to this one, but not much.

http://www.factcheck.org/article147.html

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record

http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html

Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date

http://www.factcheck.org/article252.html

half truths are just as bad a lies............
 
So 625 what are the facts that say Democrats are weak on defense?

I withdraw my assertion due to the fact that I'm too lazy to search the internet on a beautiful, sunny, 73 degree Friday! Weak, I know, but I do have more enjoyable things to do!

I couldn't quickly find any sites that listed how each member of congress voted, so I gave up.

I did find out that the majority of folks in the military vote Republican.
Why do you think that is?

I also found out that a clear majority of military contractor donations go to Republicans.
Why do you think that is?

One of the things that this administration has Homeland Security & Customs doing to make America a safer place is confiscate the elderly persons medicine being imported from Canada because it isnt safe even though it may have been manufatured in America

off topic ramblings:rolleyes:

How can you say anybody has a plan, be it Democrat or Republican when illiegals come thru the borders like crap through a goose?

I never said anyone had a good plan. Read my first post in this thread. I think we should vote out the current politicians and vote for some people that actually care about us. That's not gonna happen which is why I support term limits.
the current crop of so-called "Republicans" are weaker.
Care to compare notes?

Sure, whatcha got?

Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's

I don't see what Bush or Zell Miller has to say about Kerry has anything to do with my original statement, which has since been withdrawn.

You all can believe what you want, but I think most of us agree that both parties seem to be doing a poor job.
 
I did find out that the majority of folks in the military vote Republican.
Why do you think that is?

I also found out that a clear majority of military contractor donations go to Republicans.
Why do you think that is?

This is a highly specious argument, but I'll humor you. #1 because of the same misperception that you seem to have yourself. That is, assuming your "fact" here is even true.
#2 Because the Republicans are in charge of everything at the moment and are thus the folks to influence with contributions.

And now it's your turn: There are more Dem veterans in congress than the entire Federal Republican government. Why is this?
The Dems are fielding 10x the number of war veterans in '06 than the Reps. Why is this?

Sure, whatcha got?
I've got plenty but why should I go to all the trouble if you're not going to do the same?

Especially since your last comments find us in agreement anyway. Have a good weekend!
 
it works like this

I am going to make this statement.

Bush wants to weaken our national security.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top