Home » National Security » Why do Republicans say they are tougher than Democrats on National Security?

Why do Republicans say they are tougher than Democrats on National Security?

Question by #1 UT: Why do Republicans say they are tougher than Democrats on National Security?
Just because you want to spend unlimited amounts of money on national security does not mean your tough.

They have not captured Osama Bin Laden but they act like he is not important at the same time they say the would “follow him to the gates of hell”

I am so tired of their rhetoric.

Lets give someone else a chance.

Best answer:

Answer by vote_usa_first
I know
Obama voted to renew the Patriot act
Obama voted for FISA domestic spying
Obama voted to fund the war a few times
Obama supports leaving long term military bases in iraq

Even biden was a hardcore supporter of clinton who bombed iraq over 500 times through his presidency.

Thats tough isnt it?

Add your own answer in the comments!

Posted in National Security and tagged as , , , , , ,

30 comments on “Why do Republicans say they are tougher than Democrats on National Security?

  • During the Clinton administration we saw the largest decrease in defense spending ever.

  • Hermione Granger

    March 23, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    When Bill Clinton was in office 1992-2000, Al Qaida was unchecked and gained strength and attacked us on 9/11/2001.

    This is why we say that Republicans are tougher than Democrats on National Security.

  • Republicans have so screwed up our national security it is unbelievable. They say it, because they think that if they say it enough times, people will believe it, even though the facts say different.

  • Defeat & Retreat seems to sum it up>

  • So my question to you is..if I respond to this as a republican with knowledge so you can better understand the plan to capture Osama would you listen or would you act like the rest of the liberals out there and argue back? There is a plan set in order to capture him and when the time is right we will get him. But do you want to know more about the plan or did you really just come on here to bash conservatives? I don’t feel like arguing with closed minded people anymore.

  • Ditto vote_usa

    Bin Laden turns out to be nothing more than a figure head as others have operational control, caputring or killing him changes nothing!

  • It’s a matter of perspective. People who think national security means beating other countries into submission only associate a powerful military with ‘being tough’.

  • www.scapegoatz.com

    March 24, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Because under Clinton he cut the military. We had been attacked in the homeland 3 times and he did nothing.
    Jimmy Carter we had the same thing with Iranian hostages.

  • Let’s see…

    Clinton had Osama in his grips and let him loose

    Obama wants to surrender and retreat

    Bush was not afraid to go after the terrorists and neither will McCain. Obama will not go after the terrorists because he’s cutting the military budget back, therefore will decrease the army. Therefore, no troops left to send.

    I bet Osama is glued to the tv with popcorn in his lap waiting and praying that Obama gets in!

  • Morton Downey Jr.

    March 24, 2012 at 4:29 am

    I know, this one always bothers me. The repubs are soft on terror, period.

  • Because during the Republican Presidency since 9/11 Homeland Security has been a huge issue and not once has their been an attack on U.S. Soil..

    People forget that Clinton could have done something about al qaida when they bombed WTC building in 1993 and embassys. He decreased the defense fund and the democrats want to blame BUSH.

    Vote. McCain.. you will live to see your retirement.

  • Perhaps because they haven’t sold our countries secrets to another country (Clinton selling national secrets to china)


  • Have we been bombed since 9/11? Many plots have been thwarted.
    Obama, being the Muslim that he is, won’t admit that the surge worked because we are bombing his people. He has the support of hamas, hezbollah, rashid khalili, ayers….who stated many times that he hate the rich Americans, khadafi, and all of the radical terrorists in the middle east. Obama will bring home the troops asap and cause more of an up rise and instability in the middle east. Obama is not a big advocate for Israel.
    Do you remember all of the bombings that took place when Clinton was president and he did NOTHING?
    Obama wants open borders to Canada and Mexico so the illegals and terrorists will be able to come and go as they please.
    You will regret your decision if you think that Obama will keep us safe.
    He has soooo many ties with homegrown and abroad terrorists….that’s a fact….do your research.

  • Good question. Clinton sure proved to be effective in Bosnia, he went in, got his guy, set things up and pretty much got out of there in 3 weeks, not 7 years. Kennedy was a pretty good military strategist too, as is Muthra and others. If you check the stats, more democrats in congress have served in the armed forces than republicans.

    So I guess the lesson is, the right is more aggressive with the military, the left tends to be more eff

  • I wonder if it’s because historically, when a Republican is in office, more money is put towards the military and defense.

  • Chicken Little's Acorn

    March 24, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Go ahead and tear down National Security to spend on the poor Americans so that they will have more to be taken away when we are overrun by our conquerors.

  • If Obama was SO NAIVE that he sat in a church for 20 years not knowing what the preacher was preaching, of if he was SO NAIVE that he didn’t know who William Ayers was, or that he was SOO NAIVE that he couldn’t pick HIllary for his VP, or that he was SOO NAIVE about his past ties to certain people….than I am SOO SURE that he is TOO NAIVE to protect US from North Korea launching a missile at California, and he’s TOO NAIVE to be able to have a firm hand with certain dictators in the world.

    The guy has ZERO foreign policy experience, ZERO.

    And the DEMS have a HUGE responsiblity for what is happening in our ECONOMY right now…read up on it! So not only is his NAIVE thinking going to get us attacked, it’s also going to allow a democratic controlled HOUSE, SENATE, and PRESIDENCY to smash our economy even MORE into the ground under Democratic rule…

    Clinton did many things that brought on this issue we are facing….

    North American Free Trade Agreement – allowed companies to move outside of the U.S. and import their goods without paying penalities…
    US Deindustrialization – Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded.[44]


    Clinton pushed for the low income housing, and the DEMS pushed hard…here is an article from 1999…yes 1999!! that warns about what will happen, right after Clinton signed the agreement.


    Clinton also signed the Federal Commodities and FUTURES act – sneaky signing, last day of senate before their holiday before the end of Clintons term. What this bill did was reserve the laws to allow stock markets and investors to do CREDIT DEFAUT SWAPS AND short and gamble in futures in the stock market.


    I know many of us have heard those words before….out government had outlawed these practices during the great depression…and Clinton brought them back right before he left office. Look where we are now?

    Reality is, I would be TERRIFIED to see what shape our economy would be in today without the war. Foretold conclusion is that fighting a war is actually(usually) a good thing for the economy, it creates jobs and it creates manufacturing opportunities. When the National Guard has to go to duty, normal people like you and me have to take up their jobs while they are gone, etc.

    Now you all need to think about what you are doing…not personally AGAINST Obama, but many of the players during Bill Clinton are still in politics, but have moved on up the ladder. Pelosi, Frank, Reed, Shumer, Dodd..these were all people strongly backing these things Clinton Signed…and Obama supporters are going to give them ALL the ability to do whatever they want, with Obama for president. Look what shape they put us in now…just wait until they have majority from the house on up.

  • Thank-you. You are absolutely right. There were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq either and we are still letting our kids die over there. OBAMA’08!!

  • Republican Presidents tend to build up the military.
    Democratic Presidents tend to downgrade the military.

    This is just a fact whether you choose to believe it or not.

    However, neither side is really tough on National Security anymore. If they were we would have stern enforcement of immigration laws. The problem with Democrats is that they are too lax in the area of the national security. The problem with Republicans is that they go too far.

    The simple fact is that there are things we can do to protect ourselves to a degree, but absolute security is an illusion. We cannot trade the illusion of security for the reality of lost freedom or it won’t be too long before there won’t be anything left to fight for as we will become captives to our fears.

  • You are absolutely right. It shows how out of touch and stuck in the past they are. They’re still in the Jimmy Carter hostage crisis mindset. After that, they saw an opening to make themselves stronger on National security. At this point, Reagan scared everyone about how much of a threat the Soviet Union was and proceeded to drive our country well into debt with his stupid star wars project and defense spending. In reality, the USSR was very much in decay by the time Reagan took office in 1980. Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget by cutting defense spending. Reagan actually emboldened the communist purists and prolonged and escalated the cold war, needlessly, with the arms race. So you have a bunch of out of touch people stuck in the 1980’s propaganda of a president who was stuck in the 1960’s.

  • Paul in San Diego

    March 24, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Because the republicans believe in the military industrial complex. As long as we’re being aggressive militarily, we have to pay for the infrastructure, materials, consultants (or mercenaries), etc. Pals of the republican politicians (like Halliburton) then become wealthy and lobbyists (like Jack Abrahamof) do favors for life-long republican congressmen (like Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens) to keep the military industrial complex rolling along.

    So, republicans continue to use fear tactics to convince the American people that we or one of our allies (like Israel or Georgia) are in grave danger of being attacked. They then refer to their willingness to pour immense resources (money and people) into continued military aggression to give the illusion that they are tougher on national security than the democrats.

  • bladesinger0712

    March 24, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Yep money won’t do it I agree – It is all about action! What actions will you take to secure our country and protect your citizens. Who will you negotiate with and who will you tell hey what you did is/was wrong or not right? Who will be tough and firm and yet able to reach out and negotiate when the time Is right?

  • I am because He is!

    March 24, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Perhaps because Republicans actually provide national security (i.e. no attacks since 9/11) and Dems can’t wait to flip the magic switch (they’ve convinced everyone there is a switch to flip….there is not) and bring all of our military home. Oh and lets not forget how many military basis Clinton closed during his administration requiring several deployments per unit for National Guard (who, by the way, were designed for state protection and caretaking) and Reserve units because we no longer have a large enough Active Duty military. Was that a serious question? This isn’t rhetoric it’s the truth.

  • Because it is a fact. One only need look back at our history.

    Let’s begin with Bill Clinton, the silver tongued devil of the politicians. Bill dismantled our military and wrote laws that made it impossible for our different intelligence agencies to work hand in hand, as they had done over the years to keep our country safe. Bill was handed Osama Bin Laden’s head on a silver platter three times while he was in office. The last time Bill was playing golf and would not stop to sign the order, although he realized the seriousness of Osama. It would have been so easy that day had he put our country first. After that, Osama fled to the mountains of Afghanistan, often changing caves every hour or two, so as not to be detected.

    When Bill left office, he whispered in Bush’s ear to look out for Osama
    Don’t kid yourself. Bush has been trying to catch Osama ever since 911. We have spent millions on intelligence and that is why several of his higer ups, including his number one man are dead today. However, Bush had to reinstate our military which costs millions to do. Also, Bush had to try and rewrite our laws to allow our intelligence agencies to begin working together again. They still are partially handcuffed, but it is far better than it was after Clinton left. What would have been an easy catch back then, is like looking for a ever changing needle in haystacks of mountains now. Obviously, you have not researched this order of events.

    Here is just a little food for thought. Because of our Republican president, Bush, we are alive today. Biden has already said that to mark his word, Obama would be tested within the first 6 mos of office. The news casters have reported that the terrorists have many websites on the internet who are eagerly awaiting the results of this election. Just like Khruschev salivated when we elected JFK, a naive president, these terrorist are eagerly anticipating that we will elect Obama, an even more naive president. Do you remember The Cuban Missle Crisis? Are you aware that for six long days and six long nights we lived under the threat of nuclear missles? That was just one example of just how serious it is to elect an unprepared and naive president to be the commander and chief of our country. Trust me, the terrorists will attack within the first 6 mos if Obama is selected. They would not be so eager if McCain is at the helm. He has been tried and they know the difference. That is why I am voting for someone older and wiser to take care of America. My vote is for John McCain, as he is the only qualified and prepared candidate to run our country.

  • Because they are afraid of wisdom allot of Republicans think silly things like winning a unconventional war using conventional methods sort of like cavemen. But if they were really tough problems would be solved without our knowing.

  • Being retired military I served under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Democrats always cut military spending and Republicans boosted military spending.

    Spending so the military can have more of what it needs if they have to fight may not make you tougher. But not having what you need when you go into a fight will make you dead.

    Bush may not have had any better luck at catching Bin Laden than Clinton did. But then Bush didn’t have his street address for over three years and didn’t do anything about him.

    I’d like to give someone else a chance. But since Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a Republican just who do you suggest? Obama says if he knew what Bin Laden was he’d go after him no matter where he was. Any place, any time. Bill Clinton didn’t do that. What makes you think Obama would?

  • Todo es posible si puedes Creer

    March 24, 2012 at 10:37 am

    I ask you why are you sill alive is because of republicans and our mercyfull God.Go Blame yourself. a single party cant do nothing compared to a hole nation everysingle one of us as Americans must protect oneanother. go outside your house and you may be killed then we vote for reps or dems and what we ge is nothing the will not protect us from terrorism but we all can. remember is not what the Country can do for you but is What you can do for your country. Remember Democrats are strong and represent the liverty and power of our nation while democrats want to feed the poor and spend millions on them at a point that we all become a piece of crap and not Real Strong Americans Shame on Americans like you who are ashame of their own Country and their leaders. Vote MCCAin 08

  • Lets see the last time a Democrat was good on national defense was, JFK as his actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis were brilliant. Lets see how Democratic Presidents after him have fared on national security.
    LBJ- leads nation in to Vietnam comes up with an ROE that does everything in its power to make sure that the American military can not win.
    Carter- Only president in history to let a foreign power overrun Sovereign US territory. Cancels several key weapons programs such as the B-1 Bomber.
    Clinton- lets see refuses to send Task Force Ranger AC-130’s, armoured vehicles for support, which leads to the Black Hawk Down incident. Does nothing as Bin Laden attacks the WTC the first time, refuses to fight back after the USS Cole is attacked, again does nothing as two embassies our bombed, and a USAF barracks the Khobar Towers is attacked with no counterattack.

    I give credit were credit is due but on national security there has been no credit to give to Democratic Presidents in over 40 years

  • gregory_dittman

    March 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Osama Bin Laden is very sick or very dead. What the Republicans are killing movements. People do die of old age and as long as Al Qaeda can’t group together and get new blood, they will die out even if no shots are fired.

    A recent cross boarder raid into Syria killed the Al Qaeda cell in Syria, all eight of them. Al Qaeda and the Taliban really have only strength in Pakistan and even then they are getting slammed by the Pakistanis and the alliance in Afghanistan. Europe wants to talk to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that’s what Obama wants to do too. Pakistan and Britain already tried talking to them and the Taliban and Al Qaeda quickly broke the treaties.

    The U.S. is not just going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are going after several different terrorist groups such as FARC in Columbia. Clinton did very little for Columbia in defeating FARC. The weapons and training that Bush had as now put the fear into a terrorist group that once had a navy and air force. FARC is collapsing under the U.S.-Colombian alliance, while they thrived under Clinton. The same thing is happening to the rebels in The Philippines.

    Obama wants to talk to these groups, while the Democrats want to cut the military by 25% while complaining the military didn’t have enough troops or equipment for Iraq.

  • I think it is impossible to say what party is the strongest on this topic.

    To those who are blaming the Clinton Administration for 9/11…

    Cuts in Defense Spending had nothing to do with 9/11. Give me a break! We could have had a Juggernaut of a military, but that wouldn’t have had stopped the terrorists from sneaking on to an airliner with box cutters and hijacking it. Unless we waged paranoid preemptive wars of aggression all over the globe then perhaps with a “Nazi-like” policing of potential enemies… 9/11 may have not had occurred. Saying that cuts in defense spending is somehow linked to guerrilla terrorist activity is like saying if Tiger Woods is so good at Golf, he could play in the National Hockey League. It makes no sense and is a dangerous generalization of a very complex topic.

    Bush isn’t at fault for 9/11, neither is Clinton. The attack was planned to be in between administration shifts.

    If anything, the CIA’s lapse in judgment allowed 9/11 to occur. But mistakes do unfortunately do occur and sometimes with horrific consequences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *