Is this proof that when it comes to national security neo-cons are about as bad as it gets?

Republicans and or conservatives have the worst record for our national defense . Nixon CUTS and RUNS from Vietnam. Iran blackmails Reagan with hostages (Carter got tough and sent in special forces until chopper was shot down) so Reagan arms Iran and the Contras.



Reagan CUTS and RUNS from Hezbollah in Lebanon when they bomb a marines barracks. Reagan and Bush arm, train, finance Bin Laden and his boys in Afghanistan (the CIA operative who was the go between said on p.b.s that he warned Reagan and Bush to stop dealing with Bin Laden, but they ignored him thus ending any excuse of “we were helping him to destroy the Russian occupation”. http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/0917…



Reagan, Bush, Rumsfeld give Saddam chemical weapons. Hundreds of thousands die during this long ordeal (including an estimated 90,000 infants and toddlers which is more in that time span then abortions for a decade) Saddam runs out and then we stop arming him. That’s why we knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq.



Reagan, Bush arm and finance the Taliban. Bush’s go into business with the Bin Ladens (Carlyle Group). Bush’s become great friends with the Saudi Royal family, the same family which has financed terrorism for years. Dubya ignores Presidential Daily Brief which says “Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.”. George Tenant Begs Bush to be on alert for airplane hijackings from Arab students who are being trained to fly aircraft, but not how to take off or land. Congress wants a budget of 3 million to combat terrorism, Bush squashes this and gives zero, that’s zero dollars to terrorism. Richard Clark constantly warns Bush about terrorist attacks that will be coming soon, Bush ignores him. 9/11/01 We are hit on Bush’s watch and Bush looks like an idiot on TV when he finds out we are under attack, and operation blame Clinton because Bush is an idiot begins.



Bush protects the Bin Laden family before 9/11 when the FBI was told to back off Bin Ladens brother who was funneling money to Al-Qaeda http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/… 9/11. Bush tries handing over port security to countries linked to terrorism. Bush cuts a deal with Pakistan, a country to be well known to be a safe haven for terrorism. Now Pakistan has cut a deal with Al-Qaeda.



Bush tries handing over our ports to countries linked to terrorism. Bush is opening up our borders to Mexico and Canada soon allowing terrorists free reign in America, and handing over a hundred thousand jobs to Mexicans to be in charge of our cargo security, and all importing and exporting (this one is from Conservative Republicans http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i… )



People start making excuses “we haven’t been attacked in five years. Experts then ask “what about five years and one month, this shuts up Republicans.



Americans invent a new drinking game called “if in doubt blame Clinton”. Whenever a nut case Republican or conservative tries to put blame on Clinton to divert attention away from the Republicans terror record (see above, or read your high school history books) take one shot of whiskey.



Rumsfeld sells nuclear reactors to N. Korea. Bush sells parts for fighter jets to Iran. The question is do you still feel safe? And will Republican conservatives quit arming, training, financing all our enemies?Is this proof that when it comes to national security neo-cons are about as bad as it gets?
All the while the liberal media second guessing them when the conflicts were started. One wonders how World War Two would have ended if the media of the last 40 years was in place and allowed to stir up the loser mentality at home, as they do now.Is this proof that when it comes to national security neo-cons are about as bad as it gets?
That has to be the most factually distorted reading of history I've ever seen.



Too many distortions and falsehoods and outright fabrications to waste my time correcting. But let's just say it has all the truth of a Clinton testimony under oath. LOL!
Yes and the one Republican counter argument is, basically, ';No he didnt NEITHER!'; You can just see this guy sticking his tongue out at the monitor, completely but impotently enraged by your excellent quesiton.



You forgot to include:

1. Bush's initial resistance to the creation of an independent 9/11 commission, and his refusal to testify to it under oath. If Clinton had refused to go under oath about oral sex, Republicans would have lost their minds. Bush's refusal is confusing, unless he has something to hide. We will never know, as he spoke to the commission only once, only off the record and only with Dick Cheney sitting there beside him, telling him what to say.

2. If Bush can blame Clinton for something which happened 10 months after his Presidency ended, can HE then blame George Bush Sr, for the FIRST WTC attack, which occurred only 39 DAYS after Clinton became President?

3. How do Republicans justify villifying Clinton's lack of military experience when Bush couldnt even complete a 6 year Reserve obligation? In effect becoming a deserter in a time of war?

4. The GOP Congress last year tooka $650 Million appropriation out of the Federal Budget. This money would have been used to inspect up to 75-80% of cargo coming into the US from overseas. We currently inspect roughly 3% of this cargo and some estimate it's actually much less than that, as our trade deficit increases and even MORE cargo comes into our wide open ports.