The Democrats’ National Insecurity Plan

By: Thomas Lindaman

In an attempt to turn the tide of public perception that Democrats are weak on national security issues, Democrat leaders issued a national security policy statement. Hoping to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists everywhere and inspire voters in the midterm election, they promised a fresh approach, “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security,” as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid echoed this sentiment, saying, “We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer.”

Sounds pretty good so far. What do they propose? Well, that’s where there’s a teeny problem. See, they don’t offer specifics. They say they want to capture Osama bin Laden, but they don’t say how. They do, however, suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to the payroll.

And what do they suggest for Iraq? They want a troop withdrawal, but they don’t say when they want it done. But they do say, “We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U. S. forces.”

Gee. I feel safer already.

Guys, there’s a reason why Democrats are seen as weak on national security. It’s because they are weak on national security! Top to bottom, Democrats have been openly hostile towards our military and national security for decades, and that’s not something that can be overcome with a policy statement. Especially considering their actions speak more loudly than that statement.

Throughout the 80s, which party opposed Ronald Reagan’s attempts to beef up the military to defeat the Soviet Union, which would have made us safer? The Democrats.

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, which party had prominent members come out against the war with the chant “no blood for oil”? That would be the Democrats.

After the Berlin Wall fell, which party promptly demanded military spending be cut? Survey SAYS…the Democrats.

Which major political party ran a candidate who wrote a letter stating that he “loathed the military”? Can you say “the Democrats”? I knew you could.

Which party said military service was not the sign of a good President? Say it with me now! The Democrats!

Which party actively sought to discount the military vote in the 2000 election during the Florida recount? You spell it D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T.

Which major party has undermined the war plan in Iraq by stating the Commander In Chief broke the law, lied to get us into war, and is only seeking to make his rich donors richer? And the answer is… why, it’s the Democrats!

Which major party ran a candidate who said the Iraq war was “the wrong war at the wrong time” in spite of the fact that same candidate supported going to war with Iraq in 2002? I’ll take “Democratic Party” for $1000, Alex.

Which party speaks with pride about the number of people in their ranks who served our country, but call George W. Bush a draft dodger who went AWOL from the Air National Guard? The password is “Democrat.”

Get the picture?

But let’s get beyond the past and look at the actual problems with the proposal the Democrats have laid out for us. First, the idea to double the number of special forces and spies to get Osama bin Laden is odd, considering what the Democrats have said regarding our force levels in Iraq. People like Rep. John Murtha have said repeatedly that we didn’t bring enough troops to beat back the insurgents, and Democrats both at the grassroots level and the national level have echoed this sentiment. And they’ve all commented on lower-than-expected recruiting levels, which may or may not be happening in all branches of the military.

Riddle me this, Batman. If we don’t have the troop numbers in Iraq to win, where are the soldiers and spies going to come from? And wouldn’t those troops be more effectively used in Iraq to fight off the insurgents? This would help to bring the troops home sooner. As far as the spies are concerned, that takes time and training. Are we going to expect the terrorists to put their attacks against us on hold until we get our troops up to speed? I can just imagine Reid or Pelosi making the request: “Yeah, I know you want to kill us because we’re infidels, but could you hold off on that until we get our people trained so they can be more effective against you? Thanks. Love ya!”

Now, let’s move onto the lack of a timetable to get our troops out of Iraq. This has been an issue Democrats have used against President Bush for quite some time now. Now, when the Democrats unveil their master plan, it lacks a timetable. And for that, I’m sending the DNC a bill for a brand new Irony Meter because mine broke after reading about this fact. It’s amazing to me that anyone considers the Democrat “plan” to be a viable alternative to what President Bush is already doing. The Democrats have put out a policy statement full of promises, but lacking in any specifics. I sense John Kerry’s hand in this…

More important than the Democrats’ lack of a serious plan, though, is the apparent lack of thought put into this policy statement. It should be pointed out that if the Democrat plan sounds a little familiar, it should. It’s the same plan Bush has had and promoted since the beginning of the Iraq War. As Joe Biden will tell you, copying off someone else isn’t a key to success. Nor does it reflect any serious thought on such an important matter, which is essential to anyone proclaiming themselves to be the ones with the plan for a better future, not to mention the ones who proclaim themselves to be smarter and more in touch than the President.

Let me help you Democrats out here. Leave national security to the people who actually know a thing or two about it. Go back to doing what you do better than the Republicans.

Losing elections.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.