Spin-proof snapshots of America                           

Security

How -- and Why -- Republicans are making America far less safe

How

Remember this man?

Dr. Spade sure does, and really hopes to see him suffer soon. But you don't read much about him now. It's much easier to find spiteful comments about Hillary Clinton.

And we say little about these men.

We talk more about this man.

Of these four, only one does not carry a potential nuclear threat against America.

Yes, Saddam is a bad man and deserved a harsh end.

But let's not mince words. We're about to call a spade a spade.

Even when he was facing the very end of his rule -- the utter destruction of his regime -- Saddam lacked either the will or the means to launch a nuclear or chemical attack against American troops, much less against America.

He didn't do it. He could not or would not.

You can debate about whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea, but you can't debate whether Saddam launched an attack with WMD. He didn't. Not even in his final days.

He may have feared retaliation -- after all, he was more willing to gas the helpless Kurds years ago than he was to attack the American troops in the first Gulf War -- but more important, Saddam didn't HAVE "nuclear weapons production," as Bush stated in both his speech to the U.N. and his State of the Union address.

He didn't HAVE

• "enriched uranium"

• "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent"

• "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents"

• "a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

NOT ONE of those items -- none whatsoever -- was ever found. Some could have been destroyed, but for Pete's sake, let's call a spade a spade: President Bush lied to you.

Iraq

Neo-conservatives argue that it was still good for us to go into Iraq: Saddam was a bad man, and we introduced democracy to the region.

Dr. Spade thinks that's a load of crap.

Not the part about Saddam being a bad man (did Dr. Spade already agree with that? Saddam is a bad man).

But going into Iraq was wrong for three very important reasons:

1) We did it under false pretenses.

     It is not acceptable for politicians to lie about reasons for war.

     Are we willing to give up being a democracy in order to get Saddam?

     Dr. Spade hopes any red-blooded American would answer "no." Saddam, while a bad man, is not important than the principle of democracy. Our leaders are responsible to us -- "accountable," if you will --- and when they lie, they lose their authority.

2) It has made the world less safe.

   The President has squandered the goodwill of our allies while creating a cesspool of anarchy in Iraq. Terrorism thrives in anarchy.

   Dr. Spade does not think that the U.S. needs to win popularity contests, but he does find it useful to have allies, especially when terrorists live in many nations. People act faster to help their friends.

   The White House had no plan at all to secure the peace after removing Saddam. Now we have lost thousands of American soldiers there -- many still lack body armor and safe transport. Insurgents are getting supplies, weapons, and training from Syria to Jordan to Afghanistan.

3) We have a war going on, and Dr. Spade means the one with terrorists, not with Iraq.

     The administration has said terrorist-Iraq, Al Qaeda-Iraq, Osama (remember him?) - Iraq so many times that people believe it.

     But it's not true.

     Bush said, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida," and Condoleezza Rice said "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"   but no such documents could be produced.

     The White House has since admitted there was no verifiable relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Dr. Spade wants America to hunt down the World Trade Center terrorists, not sit in the desert, hoping the Iraqis get their act together.

Remember Osama? Creating a state of anarchy in the middle of the Middle East seems a bad plan, if the word "plan" can be applied.

There are serious and real threats to America in North Korea, Iran, and the nuclear stockpiles of the former Soviet Union, yet we have no viable plan for any of them.

Europe is leading talks with Iran. Our biggest hope with North Korea seems to be to wish that China would do more. John Kerry's plan to speed up purchase of loose nuclear material in the former Soviet republics is going unheeded, even while guards at some facilities haven't been paid in a month.

Clinton, by contrast, had a plan for North Korea. He accepted South Korea's policy of engagement -- surely, South Korea has a BIG stake in getting things right with regard to North Korea -- and we gained more concessions from Kim Jong Il. Now the White House won't even talk directly with North Korea, and we need China's nod to set up round-table discussions.

Here are the three biggest threats -- nuclear sized threats -- to America, and we don't have even a clear policy, much less a comprehensive course of action.

see our Talking Points on Iraq.

Why

are Republicans being so weak on national security?

Two reasons.

Taxes

You may love lower taxes (see our Tax page), but do you love them more than a safe nation? Don't you believe in a strong national defense?

Conservatives have such tunnel vision about taxes that they focus on them even more than security. If we had more money, they'd surely spend some of it on defense, but given the choice between the two, they chose to cut taxes.

•  President Bush then cut $5 billion in additional Homeland Security spending, meant largely to meet Transportation Security Administration needs.

•  He cut $150 million meant to help airports comply with new safety regulations.

•  He cut $300 million from security measures for the Coast Guard, more than he is now replacing with much fanfare.

•  He cut $155 million from seaport and container safety. Still, four years after 9/11, we inspect only 1 in 20 containers arriving in America.

You can find more detail on these in this letter from Senator Patty Murray to the President. Yes, this is yet another Democrat asking Republicans to fully fund national defense.

Conservatives will instinctively reject those charges, saying, perhaps, that money wasn't really necessary.

Note that the TSA cuts put funding for the agency 25 percent below what the President himself said was necessary for national security. He also promised more funding to the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard insisted it needed all of it to do an minimally effective job.

The police force in Dr. Spade's hometown is 31% smaller than it was in 2001, thanks to elimination of federal funding for its officers.

U.S. Customs says it is grossly understaffed to protect our borders.

Arizona and New Mexico have declared States of Emergency to get National Guard assistance in border patrol.

Our troops are mired in Iraq, unable to prevent genocide (the White House's own term) in Niger, or to raid terrorist training camps in Indonesia.

Enlistment in the Armed Forces has dropped precipitously, and we all know why.

Is this making us safer?

Elections

It's hard to remember the early days of 2001, but approval ratings for George W. were low before 9/11, even amongst Republicans.

Bush literally spent more than 40% of his days either on or going to vacation. The day (August 6, 2001) his office got an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" (NYT, 8/21/05, p. A11), Bush was fishing.

There was no Soviet Union. No enemy, no target.

There was new information about the 2000 election on a weekly if not daily basis. His was not a strong presidency.

Then 9/11 came and everyone ran to Daddy, as happens in a time of crisis.

Dr. Spade is not questioning the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, which was clearly the right thing to do, though he wished we sent more American troops, rather than local warlords, after Osama. Still, the military (largely formed and trained under Bill Clinton) did a tremendous job against a terrorist regime.

So the Republicans then invented another terrorist regime.

They don't need actual success in the War on Terror. As our 9/11 page shows, Americans are ready to believe Republicans are strong on national security no matter what they actually do. To win elections, there just needs to be a War on Terror.

Though the White House has publicly announced that there have been no verified links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, President Bush has crammed the two in the same breath so many times that Americans believe the link. We Americans were still mad about 9/11. We wanted to go find bad people and get them.

Dr. Spade wants to find bad people, specifically Osama Bin Laden and his coterie. Bush once said he did, too. He said he wanted Osama "dead or alive" and would make that our "No.1 priority."

That was four years ago.

You may recall this exchange from the Kerry-Bush debates:

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.
     Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"
     He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
     We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
     Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

Conservatives, of course, instinctively trust Bush when he claims Kerry is "exaggerating," and even understand that he means Kerry is "lying."

Dr. Spade has learned plenty of times that such trust in this President is misplaced.

Here's the statement Kerry referred to. It can be found many places, but Dr. Spade knows conservatives would dismiss it as untrue (see Sources) if he linked The New York Times, so here is the official White House transcript.

Too crass? Would Republicans ever really see terrorism as a selfish political opportunity rather than a threat requiring honest action?

Watch this video from the Republican National Convention and be honest.

Call a spade a spade.