How do Dems Answer Perle and Frum's Rant about Terror in Today's Times?

[BurtWorm]

How do Dems move this question off their turf and onto ours? The only reason Bush is thought of as "strong as terror" is because his is the only game in town. How can the Dems rip this issue of those incompetents' hands?



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/opinion/21FRUM.html


Big Test for the Contenders
By DAVID FRUM and RICHARD PERLE

Published: January 21, 2004

...

When President Bush said on 9/11 that we would not distinguish between the terrorists and the states that harbor them, he changed a longstanding American policy of treating terrorism as a criminal act best dealt with by the institutions of law enforcement. This is a point Mr. Bush has held steadfastly to from that awful September day through last night's State of the Union address. And he is right: no longer can we afford to hunt down individual terrorists while leaving the states that sheltered them unmolested.

...

Saudi Arabia provides about 10 percent of the 80 million barrels of oil the world burns every day, and earns about $63 billion a year. If we were to cut our oil consumption by some heroic amount, say 10 percent, it would be a drop in the barrel. Assuming everything else remained equal, the Saudis would still take in $57 billion a year. That can pay for a lot more of the extremist ideology they have been buying.

Rather, we must prevail on the Saudis to stop financing the extremism that breeds holy warriors, young men willing to die in order to realize their vision of an Islamist universe. The United States is the main obstacle to this extremist vision, which is why we are engaged in a war on terrorism.

If the Democrats are serious about their stated analyses of the terrorist threat, then they need to tell America their plan to destroy the terrorists and change the policies — or, if necessary, the regimes — of the states that support them. In addition, they need to propose a policy toward Saudi Arabia equal to the magnitude of the Saudi problem. Such a policy would be based on this direct challenge: either the Saudis put an end to the direct flow of money from the kingdom to extremist organizations or else the United States will no longer have an interest in the continued tenure of the present regime.



...

[Guaranteed]

1. Dems should have been way out in front of this.

They should have been challenging Bush on Saudi Arabia a long time ago.

[aquart]

2. "We must" as in future?

Can you tell me why the Bush administration was not pursuing this course while wining and dining the Saudis at Crawford?

It's hysterical that they suddenly discover their best friends, and Bush family business partners are financing terrorism...

Cutting oil consumption by any amount is simply sensible, as is encouraging alternate energy development of which I don't believe we hear a word from our PNAC gentlemen.

Threatening the safety of the Saudi regime can only be done by the President who has the force of the US behind him. Since the Bush family is so closely linked to the Saudi family in its business dealings, this tough talk rings very hollow indeed.

An appropriate first step would be for the Bush family to disentangle itself from Saudi family business affairs. THEN I might believe they're serious.

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Earth to Frum and Perle: this is NOT a Dem problem. . .

* and his family members and cronies are nothing but candy-ass pussies and mollycoddlers when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia.

Besides, they're just as fundamentalist in their religion as Bushco is in theirs. Peas in a pod.


:kick:

[bowens43]

4. The US over 7 1/2 years without a terrorist

attack (by foreign terrorists) during the Clinton administration. The terrorists responsible for the one attack that did occur were captured, tried and convicted. How is bushes recored better? The record of the Dems is as good if not better then the record of the repugs.

[BurtWorm]

5. Go with that! Is any Dem saying this?