Keep the Country Safe - Vote Democratic
National security is an important issue even though most voters are (justifiably) largely focused on the economy. We still live in a dangerous world and it just as important as ever to have experienced leaders in Washington who can keep the country safe.
Recent history teaches us that the Democratic party is superior to the GOP when it comes to keeping country safe. The difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations on handling Osama Bin Laden provides an excellent example of the difference between the two parties on national security.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Bush publicly boasted that he wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." Unfortunately, the next seven and half years demonstrated that there was a huge gap between Bush's cowboy like bluster and his Administration's actual performance.
The Bush Administration got off on the wrong foot when its incompetence allowed OBL to escape from Tora Bora in December 2001. After that blunder, Bush no longer made the killing or capture of OBL a high priority. Instead, on March 13, 2002, George W. Bush said of bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Subsequently, in July 2006, the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden. In September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes of Fox News that an "emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."
In contrast, shortly after he took office in 2009, President Obama directed the CIA to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority. It was, in other words, a major shift from the previous administration. Thanks to that change in priorities, Obama did in two and a half years what George W. Bush, despite all of his "dead or alive" big talk and swagger, couldn't do in over seven years.
This fall in the Presidential election, the voters face the choice between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, Romney is the least experienced major party nominee since the GOP chose Wendell Wilkie in 1940. Romney's only experience in government was his lone four year term as Governor of Massachusetts and Romney doesn't even like to talk about that term. If you listen to Romney, one would think he was in a federal witness protection program between 2002 and 2006!
Here in Nebraska in the U.S. Senate race, we have a similar choice between an experienced and proven leader and somebody who completely lacks any national security experience whatsoever. The voters shouldn't have any problem determining that there is a vast stature gap between former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey and State Senator Deb Fischer on the issue of keeping the country safe.
During Bob Kerrey's tenure in the U.S. Senate from 1989 to 2001, he served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. After that, he served as a member of the prestigious and bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. One of the many important findings by the 9/11 Commission was that on August 6, 2001, then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice gave Bush a security briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S."
In sharp contrast, Fischer as a State Senator has no national security experience at all. As a matter of fact, her entire national security platform on her website contains around 160 words and entirely consists of the usual tired right wing talking points that typify her vacuous campaign.
What this all means is that the choice this fall for the voters on national security is very clear. We can back President Obama and Senator Kerrey - who both have extensive and successful records on national security. Or the voters could select the two amateurs that the Republican Party has offered up. I'm confident that the voters will recognize on Election Day that only our fine slate of Democratic candidates can be trusted to keep the U.S.A. safe.