Setting The Record Straight On Fighting Terrorism

Republicans are running based upon the myth they created that they have a better record than Democrats on fighting terrorism. A number of blog posts this week have refuted conservative claims.

One false story which conservatives have spread the last couple of yeras is that Bin Laden would have been captured if not for Bill Clinton. It is quite ironic that they would invent such a story, considering that in reality it was George Bush who allowed bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. Think Progress report that Richard Clarke has given a different story than the upcoming ABC miniseries on 9/11. The miniseries claims that the Clinton Administration denied the CIA permission to capture bin Laden. Even the conservative Washington Times has refused to go along with spreading this right wing lie.

AMERICAblog looks back at how the Republican-controlled Congress blocked Clinton’s push for anti-terrorism legislation. We expect AMERICAblog to criticize Bush, so I’ll quote The Moderate Voice instead on the significance of this:

This is an important post on an important story. Read it. Since 9/11, Republicans have run on terrorism, more specifically on the exploitation of the issue of terrorism, and have generally been extremely successful. More, Republicans have successfully spun the narrative, still prevalent in the news media, that they are tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security while their opponents are cut-and-run doves who would expose America to more 9/11s and essentially the whole world to the omnipresent and ominous threat of “Islamofascism” (or whatever they prefer to call it and define it on any given day).

But the spin is not the truth and the narrative has been nothing but an elaborate lie. Hold the Republicans accountable for what they’ve really done, not what they claim they’ve done, this November, and do not let them get away with spinning the narrative any longer. It was Clinton, a Democrat, who recognized and sought to deal with the threat of global terrorism, the terrorism of al Qaeda and its ilk, long before 9/11. It was the Republican leadership in Congress that stopped him, that willfully and irresponsibly ignored the threat and left America exposed.

Now, which party exactly is tough on terrorism and trustworthy on national security? Which party tried to do something about terrorism even before it became a key electoral issue while the other has callously exploited it to win elections only after it could effectively be turned into a partisan issue in the wake of 9/11? Which party focused on terrorism both at home and abroad well before, and in anticipation of, 9/11 while the other has more recently pursued a disastrous military misadventure in Iraq that has nothing to do with terrorism and that has severely weakened America’s ability to deal with terrorism?

Another recent post here also looked at Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism. Joe Conason reviewed this in his book Big Lies (chapter available here).

Be Sociable, Share!

1 Comment

  1. 1
    Hurricane Harry says:

    Good article. Must remember though that most people don’t base decisions on reality, but on their perception of reality. Therefore the spin will always be what is believed will sell.

    Democrats: Blood For Votes

    How To Negotiate With Terrorists

    Hurricane Harry
    Reporting from Beyond The Wall

Leave a comment