From Barbara:

Some political analysts are asserting that Democrats are talking tough on national security matters to indicate that they are not going to cede the issue to Republicans this Fall.

An examination of the Democrats’ record on national security programs and personnel, however, illustrates that such rhetoric is unsupported by concrete action.

• The President authorized the National Security Agency Terrorist Surveillance Program to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda. The purpose of the program is to detect and prevent planned attacks against the United States.


• Democrats, in response to unauthorized revelations about the program, suggested that the program is grounds for impeachment; introduced a resolution to censure the President for his actions; and praised the fact that the existence of this program was published in the open source media.

• A Republican-led Congress provided legislation authorizing the President to bring terrorists before military commissions to answer for their war crimes and to continue an interrogation program conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency.


• Were it not for the CIA program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the homeland.


• The majority of Senate Democrats voted against this legislation.

• The Patriot Act makes the tools that are available to pursue bank robbers or those who committed financial crimes available for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks.


• It has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has saved American lives.

• When it came time to reauthorizing these tools, most Democrats filibustered that effort.

• The President has provided a definition of victory in Iraq and a strategy to attain it. The President has stated on multiple occasions that victory will be achieved in Iraq when Iraq can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself against the terrorists. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq outlines the process to achieve that end state.


• Democrats, on the other hand, do not have a plan for victory in Iraq other than to criticize the Administration’s current strategy without offering a strategy of their own.


• The only tangible part of their plan is either to withdraw from Iraq now, or demand a timeline for withdrawal without regard to conditions on the ground.


• Even their hand-picked witnesses at a DPC hearing on Iraq rejected this so-called “strategy.”


• It would leave a “regional mess.” – Major General John Batiste (ret.).


• Iran would be “the greatest beneficiary.” – Major General Paul Eaton (ret.).


• It would “recreate Afghanistan for the terrorists.” – Colonel Thomas Hammes (ret.).


• Even Senator Biden, in analyzing the intervention in Bosnia, has cautioned against the dangers of setting “an artificial deadline” for the withdrawal of troops because that “would turn our troops into lame ducks as a given date approaches.” Bosnia: Why the United States Should Finish the Job, SAIS Review, Vol. 18, no. 2, p. 1 (Summer/Fall 1998).

• Fighting the war against radical Islamist terrorists requires not only the national security programs in place to prosecute that war; but it also requires the proper personnel in place to execute those programs. Democrats have blocked at one point, or are currently blocking, the following nominations to critical national security positions:


• Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, John Bolton


• Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England


• Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman


• Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Peter Flory


• Office of the Director of National Intelligence General Counsel, Ben Powell


• Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Kenneth Wainstein


• Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division, Alice Fisher


• Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury

• Republicans have offered real solutions to energy problems: Energy Policy Act of 2005.


• Democrats, on the other hand, continue to assert that there is a dependence on foreign oil, but then block all efforts to ease the cost of energy for American consumers.


• They attempted to prevent even the taking of an inventory of oil and gas resources beneath the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf.


• They also voted to impose a substantial tax penalty on U.S. oil and gas companies by preventing them from deducting business expenses associated with drilling dry wells.

The choice this November is clear, between a party that only talks tough on national security issues and a party that follows through on such talk with even tougher action.