DEMOCRATS' RECORD OF FAILURE: National Security

In the opening hours of the 110th Congress, Democrats attempted to outsource responsibility for the U.S. Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) – a program recognized by the 9/11 Commission report as critical and in need of expansion – to the United Nations. That was H.R. 1. From there, the Democrats’ record on national security just got worse.

Democrats spent a week debating a non-binding resolution criticizing one tactic in the Global War on Terror – a debate Republicans won by making a compelling case to the American people about the disastrous consequences of anything short of victory. Democrats spent three months wrangling over the details of their “slow bleed” strategy, which would force a precipitous withdrawal from the Global War on Terror by hamstringing our troops in harm’s way and handcuffing our generals on the ground. To grease the wheels for this reckless bill, Democratic leaders loaded it up with billions in unrelated pork-barrel spending.

Key Democrats even proposed closing the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transferring the detainees to U.S. communities. They’ve attempted to ban the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” in official planning documents at the House Armed Services Committee. And while our troops remain in harm’s way, Democratic leaders skipped town on a two-week vacation to meet with leaders in Syria – one of the chief state-sponsors of terrorism. And they haven’t ruled out meeting with Iranian leaders either.

As demonstrated by their very actions, Democrats have severely misjudged the true nature of our enemy and willfully neglected the unspeakable consequences of failure.

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT DEMOCRATS’ FAILURES TO STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY

Time and time again, writers and editorial boards across the country have criticized House Democrats for their dereliction of duty:

“After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.”
- “Do We Really Need a Gen. Pelosi?” Los Angeles Times Editorial, March 12, 2007

“It [Democrats’ plan] is an initial step by newly empowered congressional Democrats to completely undermine the war by limiting funds - to deny the troops the beans and bullets they need to win, and to broadcast to America’s enemies in the Middle East and around the world that the United States has lost the will to protect itself, and its friends.”
- “Dems’ Disgrace,” New York Post Editorial, February 17, 2007

“We fear that clever maneuvers like the one proposed by Representative John Murtha, reportedly with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a ‘support the troops’ measure won’t help contain the war or make American troops safer.”
- “On to the Hard Part on Iraq,” New York Times Editorial, February 17, 2007

“House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. [Democrats] should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.”
- “Retreat and Butter,” Washington Post Editorial, March 23, 2007

Democrats have even tried to ban usage of the phrase “Global War on Terror”:

“This is yet another sign that the Democrats are going hard-left on national-security issues generally and not just on Iraq -- in this instance, trying to airbrush away the very war on terrorism from our most basic defense legislation.”
- “Wartime Revisionism At Home,” Washington Times Editorial, April 5, 2007

Multiple editorials have explained the problems caused by Democratic leaders’ decision to use their vacation to act as junior diplomats, undermining the President and our professional diplomats and jeopardizing our efforts in the Global War on Terror:

“But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad – even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. … No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.”
- “Pelosi Steps Out of Bounds on Ill-Conceived Trip to Syria,” USA Today Editorial, April 6, 2007

“She purported to convey a message from Israel’s Ehud Olmert expressing similar interest in ‘the peace process,’ except that the Israeli Prime Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had got the message wrong. Israel hadn’t changed its policy, which is that it will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and stops trying to dominate Lebanon. As a shuttle diplomat, Ms. Pelosi needs some practice. … With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.”
- “Democrats At War,” Wall Street Journal Editorial, April 6, 2007

REPUBLICANS SUPPORT AMERICAN TROOPS, VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR

Republicans believe there is still time to do the right thing: fully-fund the troops without strings attached. House Republicans have filed a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation by Vietnam War veteran Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) which would ensure Congress fully-funds our troops in harm’s way. And we will continue our fight next week on the House floor to strip the Democrats’ bill of the dangers it presents to our national security.

Democrats are not just sending our troops a message of defeat; they are setting policies to ensure it. Arbitrary timelines and political conditions serve as a road map for the terrorists. Substituting the judgment of 535 politicians from Washington, D.C. for that of our generals on the ground is, by any standard or definition, a recipe for disaster.

The American military will win this war on radical Islamic terrorism. For the safety and security of future generations of Americans, they must.