Obama Blasts Back On Terror, Blames GOP For Bin Laden's Escape
If there were any doubts that the Obama campaign would respond aggressively to the sort of soft-on-terror attacks that felled John Kerry four years ago, Obama put them to rest today.
Here's Obama on the campaign plane, placing the blame squarely on the GOP for letting Bin Laden escape...
"Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane..."What they're trying to do us what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid," Obama said.
There's also this...
Reminded that the Republican playbook worked in the 2004 presidential race, Obama countered: "Well, it's 2008.""I'm looking forward to having a robust argument about this issue," he said. "I don't shy away from it."
This is key. Remember that this particular debate functions on two levels: First, on the substantive level, where Obama is of course rebutting the attacks by arguing that the GOP has made us less safe. But there's also another level here: The Republicans are also pushing the terror stuff to accomplish the larger goal of being perceived as the campaign on offense, at a time when the McCain camp is clearly not gathering speed as quickly as the Obama campaign is.
It's hard to believe right now, but it was only two years ago -- in the spring of 2006, during the midterm elections -- that many national Dems were still struggling to persuade themselves that they could win an argument against the GOP on national security. Obama, clearly, suffers from no such confidence deficit. Perhaps more important, he's saying so. Loud and clear.
Things are off to a very interesting start.
Also, isn't it really early for the GOP to pull the 9/11 card, and the 3 a.m. card?
Shouldn't they wait until the early fall to attack Obama hard on this issue?
The more they snipe about 9/11, the less effective it's going to be.
June 17, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are desperate! It is like the "I'm a POW" and Rudy's "9/11" defense. Pulling out your strongest weapons so early in a campaign is a speaks of desperation.
June 17, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Pulling out your strongest weapons so early in a campaign speaks of desperation.
June 17, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, it's great to have a candidate who understands that the thing that makes Democrats "look weak" isn't failing to be warlike enough, it's failing to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
We're going up against a party that suffered the greatest national-security failure of our lifetime and tried to duck responsibility for it, and then plunged into possibly the greatest foreign-policy disaster in our country's history, and are still trying to argue that they're the ones who should be trusted on national security!
June 17, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. That's all I really wanted to add.
June 17, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell no, they didn't duck responsibility for it! They wore it like a badge!
Fourtunately, that once-bright-and-shiny badge is now sooooo tarnished!
June 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
^^ "Fortunately," not "fourtunately." ^^
PLEASE GIVE US PREVIEW AND/OR EDIT!!!!
June 17, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really irks me is how on earth did the republicans get to be the "national security" party. Dems won ww I and ww II. Republicans were the cowardly party during both conflicts and wanted to keep america out. Dems f*cked up in vietnam by being too aggressive and getting us stuck in a quagmire.
Now, what exactly did republicans do to warrant being the national security party. They conquered panama and grenada, wow, that's huge. They crushed iraq in 91, with the world behind us. They fought tooth and nail to prevent clinton I from going aggressively after the terror threat in the 90's claiming that there was no threat. They were asleep at the switch leading up to 9/11 and then they got us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq.
Sooo, any of you republican trolls, what exactly are the republican party's "national security" qualifications? The republican party's record seems kind of weak to me. Unless I'm missing something.
Go obama, take it to them.
June 17, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, pardon me - After they explain that, I'd like them to explain how it is that they are the party to trust with the economy.
They've run that con just as long as the national security con.
All they know how to do is run up record deficits.
June 17, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. If anything, add in the economy they are the cluster-f*ck party. The alleged economic expansions under the b-movie actor and the king were fed in large part by huge record deficits. You would think at this point "trickle down economics" would be totally discredited. It's just a tool employed by the republicans to make the rich incredibly richer and screw everyone else. It will be nice if someday people wake up.
June 17, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that they are the party of "moral values" yet, when their candidates were lined up for the debates, there were like 25 marriages between them, most of which hadn't ended before the next lady was "on board".
They are also the party who openly and passionately hates "teh gays" yet our most amusing "bathroom and hooker" gay activities come out of, you guessed it, the GOP.
Weren't going to take special interest money, were going to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House (still have that mental image of Bush tapdancing on the porch), transparency in government, accountability, and lest we forget, we were NOT going to engage in nation building.
I'd say their pitching a perfect game!
PEACE
June 17, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to add GOBAMA!
June 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They always run up the deficits, thet lose the wars, but the media repeats their lies over and over to the point of ridiculous. I cannot tell you how many people think the Democrats spend spend spend, never mind our budget deficit right now. Frankly, there are a lot of dumb, stubborn and ill-informed people voting Republican for all the wrong reasons.
June 17, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans are the "national security" party because they open the spigot of federal money for defense contractors who through one contrivance or another manage to steal billions from American taxpayers every year. I think of it as "white collar welfare."
Then Democrats come along and cut this sort of wasteful spending and the Republicans puppet the wishes of the defense contractors and scream that Dems don't care about national defense.
No matter that Democrats have given soldiers better pay increases, the GI Bill, education offsets for bases and an improved VA while Republicans have eliminated the education offset, privatized the VA and opposed the new GI Bill, people don't pay attention to WHAT the defense dollars go for, but what the total amount is.
So, smarter, leaner spending is, in the eyes of the media and the pundits, weaker on national defense that unlocking the treasury and giving wheelbarrows to defense contractors.
When national defense is measured by how much is spent, not how well it's spent, then Republicans win on national security because if nothing else, the Republican party exists to transfer money to the defense industry.
June 18, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And....BOOM.
June 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you are having a hell of a day - another really good post.
You're right - Democrats just kept cringing right up until now and this rocks.
June 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic:
I always say that Sebelius, Webb, Biden, and Hagel could be Obama's VP.
But what if the VP is Gov. Bill Richards.
- - Think about this for a moment, Obama has already named Patti Solis Doyle as the chief of staff for the VP.
- - this would be a very smart tactical move that I think will put Obama over the top with Hispanic support, its at 68% against McCain right now, it'll probably jump to 90%.
June 17, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know jefo, as much as my friends bristle at the mere mention of this, I sincerely think that Chuck Hagel would be one hell of a VP pick.
June 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Chuck Hagel would make a good pick too. Really Obama can't go wrong with any those four. Lets Hope he makes the right choice.
June 17, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Republicans NO NO NO!
Dammit. If something happens, that is just handing the country back tot he Republicans.
This is a Democratic administration. No Republicans.
June 17, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! This romantic hankering for Hagel is beyond me -- he is as wacko right wing as the rest of them, except for the one Iraq issue now, having cheer led and voted for it back when it would have been wonderful to see his spine and conscience, may be even a little judgment and sense of morality...
June 17, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel has been one of the few Republicans willing to break with Bush on the war but if people will check out his voting record he is EXTREMELY conservative on most issues. Definitely not a good choice for VP. I might not object to a lesser cabinet post if it was a reasonable fit.
June 17, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One non-negotiable point for Chuck Hagel. He must caucus with dems for the remainder of this congress. This alllows Reid to strip LIEberman of his chairmanship and kick his bony a$$ out of the caucus.
June 17, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Obama said he would have both parties involved in his administration. I don' think that is a bad thing. And frankly, I like Chuck Hagel. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he is a stand-up guy.
June 17, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big difference between having him "involved" and having him as vice president. How exactly would he campaign? He wouldn't be able to talk about anything but the war (the only point of shared policies between he and Obama) and the press/Republicans would have a field day with that.
June 17, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all of the reasons mentioned earlier in this thread -- that the Republicans have been, to a large extent, poser champions of national security, the economy and "family values" -- I must absolutely and unequivocably agree with Tena:
No Republican as VP!
Shouldn't do it.
Wouldn't be prudent.
June 17, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel would be completely unacceptable as VP. Except for the war, the guy's a down-the-line Republican.
June 17, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among other things, I seem to recall that Hagel has consistently voted against a woman's right to choose.
June 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. Remember that excellent advice about not talking about Iraq??
Good grief. Thank goodness for Ned Lamont, and his primary victory. While he didn't win in November, his primary victory against you-know-who sure gave the Democrats a needed shot of backbone...
June 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well. Not to open old wounds, but that's what you *have to do* when you triangulate to begin with. If you start with a principled stand, you can just keep going from there. Rhetorically speaking, it's much simpler :)
June 17, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Obama's response is going to require a reconfiguration by the McSame gang. They have been counting on Obama being a standard Democratic wuss like Pelosi or Reid. Too bad for them. Great for us. Even better for America.
June 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Pelosi and Reid are both doing a great job under incredible odds. They are not "wusses." They are doing the best that they can. Pelosi especially will go down as one of the great speakers of the house. Don't bag on them because they didn't impeach the king. They stopped him pretty much dead in his tracks, which is a good thing. Marginalize him and then when the new administration comes in flambeau him, darth vader and the rest of the nazi heirarchy. Turn them over to the hague and be done with them when they are out of power.
June 17, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
can i call Pelosi and Reid wusses for rolling over on the FISA bill?
oh, and Reid is a double wuss for voting Yea on the AUMF.
and a triple scoop of wuss for seeking unacceptable, undermining compromises on any number of important issues that shouldn't ever be given the approval of reasonable people, let alone Democrats.
let's not get all touchy-feely about our Democratic Congress yet; they've failed us severely over the past few years and we can't forget that.
June 17, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the fisa bill was passed into law? Uhhh, nope. That took some kahones in the face of the republican attacks about how we were going to get bombed into oblivion if the law wasn't passed.
Agree on the aumf. All the dems that voted for it deserve blame.
I still think all in all they are doing a good job at this point. Just my opinion.
June 17, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi has a much more secure majority to work with than Ried. That's why she could stop the FISA-court castration bill.
I'm not happy with a lot of Ried's work, but I'll cut him some slack. He's in a precarious position.
June 17, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a coward. He stands for NOTHING and doesn't force the Repukes to ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER.
Take Pelosi off the table in 2008.
Drown out Feinstein in 2012.
June 18, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
BAM!! Gooooobama!!!
June 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
it true they were supposed to fight the war on terror not the war on iraq
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/mccains-clayton-williams-problems/
June 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank You. This is it. The man has supreme confidence, and he's not like a typical Democratic wimp of the past. Like David Ortiz, we can jump on his shoulders and ride proudly into this battle together. We will take the fight to the GOP, and beat them on every single point - morally and factually.
June 17, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of ironic that McCain accuses Obama of Sepember 10 mindset ... because his mindset is stuck in 1974!
June 17, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Greg. I love the way Obama just slams back everytime the GOP tries to back him into the old tried and true Demo corners. I noticed the first time Obama did this right after he started focussing on the GE while the primary was going on. He never did this with Senator Clinton when she attacked him I was so whoooeee surprised! And they called him a whuss.
June 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's right; he stopped pushing back at 100% in February after he realized that there was a better than 90% chance that he'd be the nominee.
He has a great counter punch; especially when he is ahead on points. To keep my boxing analogy, I doubt that he'll ever go for the knockout punch though and that will drive some Dems crazy.
June 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Greg. I love the way Obama just slams back everytime the GOP tries to back him into the old tried and true Demo corners. I noticed the first time Obama did this right after he started focussing on the GE while the primary was going on. He never did this with Senator Clinton when she attacked him I was so whoooeee surprised! And they called him a whuss.
June 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take that concern trolls. Obama is spoiling for this debate, and he will reframe it. The undeserved Republican reputation for national security superiority will be shattered to smithereens.
June 17, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do these people lie to me? First they said I had the wrong password, then they said I couldn't submit because I had already submitted too many times and now I have done the damnable doofuss looking double post uggeeeeehhhh.
June 17, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel your pain. Truly I do.
June 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny post. I've been constantly having the same problem. But your post is too funny, I am still laughing. Thanks.
June 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we could also have a "give 'em hell" factor going in this election. Voters who don't even like Democrats or minorities might just be mad enough to vote against Repubicans out of spite. I see no benfit to any Democrat cozying up to the status quo. This is not a year to be Republican-lite.
June 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican-lite would have deprived us of this ass-whooping foreign policy debate.
June 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
mcfuddle will soon begin to whimper from Obama's smackdowns. He wants the debate...he wants the argument...
June 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually envision a mcbush meltdown. Red faced, screaming and pointing his finger. Kind of like mr. bill during the primaries. I can see it coming any day now.
June 17, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign is--quite literally--all talk. We'll see whether that's good enough.
He brings nothing to the table in terms of national security. If Bush wants to throw McCain a bone, he'll engineer a little overseas dust-up in late summer. (Does anyone think he's above such tactics?)
Just saying, guys. I have no use for Obama, and I don't think he can win. You true believers can figure it out.
June 17, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was filling sandbags in IL. That's got a hell of a lot more to do with national security than the $3 trillion we're wasting in Iraq. I wonder how many levees you could build for $3 trillion.
June 17, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, given that politics is, you know, a lot of talking I think we're in good shape with Obama. ;0
June 17, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you just talkin smack, or do you actually have some analysis to back it up? Nothing is more persuasive than an unsupported assertion....
June 17, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's right side of the issues talk or McCain's wrong side of the issues actions; you decide which is better.
June 17, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right...All Obama brings is brains.
June 17, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, guys. I just don't see where Obama has any credentials on national security. I know he gave an Iraq speech in 'O2. After that--zilch.
I didn't drink the Obama Kool-Aid. Neither did most voters. Simply ridiculing McCain won't cut it in November.
Now go finish your homework.
June 17, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink