Are Democrats soft on National Security

Great Debates
21

For those of you who want to see the raw numbers minus the spin from our Democratic friends here, wander over to Vote-Smart. About a third of the way down the page on the left is a search box where you can select a year, and an issue. Select “Defense Spending” or “Defense Policy”, and pick any year in their database. Then you can see for yourself how Democrats actually voted.

I’m STILL looking for an issue on which Democrats were more hawkish than Republicans. Haven’t found one yet. I also tried to match Tejota’s criterion and find a defense-only appropriations bill that Democrats overwhelmingly supported. Haven’t found one of those either.

However, I HAVE found tons of defeated bills entered by Democrats for things like base closures, cancelling weapons systems, moratoriums on nuclear testing, freezes on military pay, etc.

Some of the highlights:

A 1994 Democratic bill to cut funding for the B-2. Voted for by the majority of Democrats, defeated by Republicans.

HR2401, a Democrat proposal to cut 1 billion in funding for troops in Europe. Voted for by a majority of Democrats, defeated by a majority of Republicans.

S3114 - A Democrat proposal to halt all further development of the B-2 bomber. Voted for by an overwhelming majority of Democrats, defeated when all but six Republicans opposed it.

HR5006 - A stupid Democratic bill to reduce Defense spending across the board by an additional 10% over already proposed cuts. Defeated, but voted for by 87 Democrats, and 3 Republicans.

HR2401 - A vote to cancel the Trident II submarine - supported by a majority of Democrats, defeated by a majority of Republicans

HR3610 - Military Budget Freeze - Voted for by overwhelming majority of Democrats, opposed by overwhelming majority of Republicans.

S1745 - A vote to reduce overall military spending by 4.1 billion. Voted for by all but 6 Democrats, voted against by all but 5 Republicans

S1894 - A vote to reduce the number of F18 fighter jets funded in 1996 from 12 to 6. Voted for by all but 8 Democrats, voted against by all but 5 Republicans.

HR1119 - A vote to completely cancel the B-2 bomber program. Voted for by the majority of Democrats, defeated by a majority of Republicans.

On the bright side, however, Democrats have introduced no less than five bills to support abortions in military hospitals. That should keep us all safe.

22

Minty, what comment do you have on the numerous other cites provided, or in the way of substantive evidence showing Democratic support of national security initiatives?

  • Rick
23

Oh, and I know I must be winning the debate. You can always tell, because ElvisL1ves comes out of the woodwork to tell me that I’m not allowed to have an opinion because I’m Canadian.

Thanks, Elvis.

24

Sam Stone, your cites only prove that Republicans never met a weapon system they didn’t like, and that they are soft on budget cutting. We can’t afford big spending Republicans who run up huge deficits due to the orgies of military appropriations that occur every time they are in power. Give me a President like Clinton any day, who balanced the budget and built a booming economy without a ground war in Asia.

25

Sure, you posted a dozen votes. Out of what, probably a thousand or more total for the last decade alone? B.F.D. What’s more, the votes you did post are almost too stupid for words. Let’s look at 'em:

1. Star Wars Testing. NMD is stupid because (a) it doesn’t work, (b) won’t provide any reasonable measure of protection damn thing even if it did work exactly as advertised, and © is a giant black hole for billions and billions of dollars that would be more effectively spent elsewhere in the military budget.

2. A bill to require a presidential review before reducing nuclear weapons. Stupid and possibly unconstitutional. Congress cannot and should not delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. If Congress wants to reduce nuclear weapons, Congress should be able to reduce nuclear weapons–subject to presidential veto, of course.

3. Trident D-5 submarine missile program. Dude, the Cold War is over. We don’t need any more damn missile subs, whose sole purpose was to blast the shit out of the Soviet Union with nuclear missiles. Pure pork, a complete waste of resources.

4. Military Base Closures. Your own vote totals show plenty of bipartisan support for shutting down those bases. On that point alone, your example is stupid. Moreover, a smaller post-Cold War military means we need fewer bases anyway. Moreover moreover, such decisions are predominantly questions of local pork.

5. Bill allowing Secretary of Army and Navy to lease corporate jets. Too ridiculous to dignify with a response.

6. Military aid to Columbia. Unless you’re talking about military aid to Columbia, S.C., this has fuck-all nothing to do with national defense.

1. Democrat bill to cancel Trident D-5 missile program. Cold War’s over, and we’ve got plenty of nukes. Or are you referring to a vote in the 1980s, in which case the point that we had plenty of nukes was still completely valid?

2. Owens (D-NY) Substitute military budget: Offer of new military budget that offers steeper cuts in military budget in exchange for greater domestic social spending. Soundly rejected by the party you’re bitching about. Next.

3. DeFazio military budget supplemnt: Another Democratic proposal to put serious cuts in the military budget in exchange for more domestic social spending. Soundly rejected by the party you’re whining about. Next.

4. Frank Amendment. Another Democratic proposal, this time to cut the military budget by 1% across the board. Soundly rejected by the party you’re whining about, plus 1% is chump change. Next.

5. Intelligence appropriations disclosure. A bill requiring the intelligence agencies to make their spending public. Hionesty in the federal budget is a good thing. Next.

6. Army School of the Americas. Has fuck-all nothing to do with national defense.

26

See, that’s your problem right there. You define “soft on defense” as “less hawkish than Republicans,” like it’s some kind of race-to-the-finish contest. Ridiculous. What you need to show is that Democrats would not provide for a military capable of defending the nation and projecting American military power where necessary and appropriate around the world. You can’t do that by just complaining that Democrats think Star Wars is crap and that the Secretary of the Navy can fly business class.

27

It would seem to me that some posters are confusing “the Democrats are not soft on Defence” with “the Democrats are indeed soft on defence, but this softness is justified”. These are two separate arguments.

28

Minty, you’re making the case for the opposition. For the record, I didn’t pick ‘particularly stupid’ bills. I picked ALL the bills, save that I got tired of posting after I got about 2/3 of the way through.

And I see you conveniently ignored my other cites. I assume you think the B-2 bomber is also stupid? The F-18? How about the Aegis missile cruiser? The F-117? Democrats voted against all of them.

But let’s go through your list above, and see just how incredibly wrong you are.

Tell that to the Israelis. They are being protected right now by the Arrow missile system, which is a direct outgrowth of SDI research.

Sez you. The bill passed. I don’t recall a Supreme Court challenge. Do you?

So your position is that the U.S. no longer needs a strategic nuclear deterrence? Glad to hear you’re such a hawk on defense.

Yes, I posted votes that showed bipartisan support, because I posted all votes to be fair. Base closures are the one area where you can find significant Democratic support, for the pork reasons you mentioned. Even doves have a hard time explaining closure of the home bases to their constituents. But even here, support is weaker among Democrats.

Why? I hope you realize that your knee-jerk response to this is not helping your position. Give me a reason why this is ridiculous.

I posted it because it came up under military spending. It may or may not be critical to defense. I’d probably say not - sounds like war on drugs BS to me. But hey, I’m just trying to be thorough.

69 Democrats voted for it. NO Republicans voted for it. As I said, which you apparently missed, even in cases where the Democrats ended up supporting a program, significant numbers of them disagree. I think this is important. You don’t, because it hurts your case.

Same comments apply. The fact that 60 Democrats supported it and no Republicans did is evidence for the proposition that Democrats are softer on defense than Republicans.

I’ll skip the Frank amendment - same comments apply

And it’s exactly this kind of stupidity that makes people feel queasy about having Democrats in charge of the nation’s defense. ‘Black’ programs are essential to keep foreign nations from anticipating new weapons systems and countering them. Thank God the Republicans are around, or the U.S. would be announcing all of its secret programs to its enemies.

I’d say having your nearest allies being appropriately trained is important. I think most people who care about defense would think the same way. Certainly Republicans do. You don’t. That helps make the point that Democrats are soft on defense.

29

Minty, you’re making the case for the opposition. For the record, I didn’t pick ‘particularly stupid’ bills. I picked ALL the bills, save that I got tired of posting after I got about 2/3 of the way through.

And I see you conveniently ignored my other cites. I assume you think the B-2 bomber is also stupid? The F-18? How about the Aegis missile cruiser? The F-117? Democrats voted against all of them.

But let’s go through your list above, and see just how incredibly wrong you are.

Tell that to the Israelis. They are being protected right now by the Arrow missile system, which is a direct outgrowth of SDI research.

Sez you. The bill passed. I don’t recall a Supreme Court challenge. Do you?

So your position is that the U.S. no longer needs a strategic nuclear deterrence? Glad to hear you’re such a hawk on defense.

Yes, I posted votes that showed bipartisan support, because I posted all votes to be fair. Base closures are the one area where you can find significant Democratic support, for the pork reasons you mentioned. Even doves have a hard time explaining closure of the home bases to their constituents. But even here, support is weaker among Democrats.

Why? I hope you realize that your knee-jerk response to this is not helping your position. Give me a reason why this is ridiculous.

I posted it because it came up under military spending. It may or may not be critical to defense. I’d probably say not - sounds like war on drugs BS to me. But hey, I’m just trying to be thorough.

69 Democrats voted for it. NO Republicans voted for it. As I said, which you apparently missed, even in cases where the Democrats ended up supporting a program, significant numbers of them disagree. I think this is important. You don’t, because it hurts your case.

Same comments apply. The fact that 60 Democrats supported it and no Republicans did is evidence for the proposition that Democrats are softer on defense than Republicans.

I’ll skip the Frank amendment - same comments apply

And it’s exactly this kind of stupidity that makes people feel queasy about having Democrats in charge of the nation’s defense. ‘Black’ programs are essential to keep foreign nations from anticipating new weapons systems and countering them. Thank God the Republicans are around, or the U.S. would be announcing all of its secret programs to its enemies.

I’d say having your nearest allies being appropriately trained is important. I think most people who care about defense would think the same way. Certainly Republicans do. You don’t. That helps make the point that Democrats are soft on defense.

30

Still missing the point eh Sam?

Look, the defense of the USA is not measured by how effectively we can blow things up. It is measured by the safety of the American people and property.

As such, the military is the last line of defense in a hostile world. (or maybe second to last, with the citizen militia being the last).

Republicans focus nicely on making sure that the last line of defense is will supplied with weapons (and pork). But so what?.

Democrats, by contrast, focus more on the first line of defense: Making sure that the world is a safer place in general.
In the long run, the best defense isn’t a good offense, it’s changing the nature of the game so you don’t have any enemies in the first place.

Trade and good relations with other nations is more effective in making the USA safe than any number of weapons systems.

Republicans focus all of their defensive energies in exactly the places will they will be useful only if we have already failed to reduce the agressiveness of other nations. This is fundamentally stupid policy.

31

The B-2 is a weapons system designed for a mission that no longer exists, and which is generally incapable of performing the missions it is now asked to perform. New acquisitions should be killed, for the program’s zillion dollar price tag can be spent far more effectively on other defense programs.

As for your other examples of individual weapons systems being voted against by Democrats . . . so fucking what? National defense is not a zero-sum game, compadre. So the Dems voted against the F-117 . . . when? (Sure as hell wasn’t during development and initial production, when it was so black it was kept off-budget.) What context? Did we already have enough of the things? What did the Dems want to spend money on instead? Without that information, it’s absolutely impossbile to look at that vote–or any of the others you isolate–and determine a damn thing about whether Democrats are “soft on defense.”

And oh yeah, let’s see how well that Arrow thing works, huh? My guess is not so good, not even against such fat targets as Saddam’s Scuds. Furthermore, it’s not at all designed to intercept the kind of ICBM’s Star Wars is supposed to take out, so it hardly supports your point even to the unknown extent that it works.

Izzy:

No, you have that precisely backwards. Opposing a particular military expenditure does not make one “soft on defense” by any stretch of the imagination. If it ain’t justified, it ain’t soft on defense to oppose it, any more than it would be soft on defense to oppose the ritual burning of six billion dollars as an offering to the ballistic missile gods.

32

Sam Stone, since you have done all the research on the voting records of Democrats vs Republicans on military spending, can you cite a single occasion on which a majority of Republicans voted against a new weapons system or expansion of a military program? This kind of knee-jerk pandering to the military-industrial complex is far more dangerous to the security of the US than any imagined missiles that might be pointed towards American airspace.

That being said, when Democrats vote against boondoggle spending on a useless technology like Star Wars that does not contribute one whit towards the defense of the country, it hardly can be used to tar them as “soft on defense”.

33

But Fear, don’t you understand that’s their entire argument? Simply define the appropriate level of support for national defense as whatever the Republicans want–right down to cushy private jets for the Secretary of the Army–then whine like crazy that the Democrats are a bunch of pussies for rubber-stamping everything they ask for.

Notice how not one conservative in this thread has made the case that the Democrats would have left the country without a military strong enough to defend the country and project American force around the world when necessary? And how none of them ever bother to ask “Well, gee, what do you guys think we should spend the dough on?” They don’t care, because Only the Republican Way is the Right Way.

34

“. . . for not rubber-stamping everything they ask for.”

35

I’m not going to let you guys twist this debate.

The debate is, “Are the Democrats soft on defense?”

The OP opines that they are not, and that the only reason they are perceived that way is because of Republican propaganda.

My rebuttal is that they are perceived that way because they act that way. How else are we to judge them, if not by their voting records?

As for the B-2 being useless, that’s nonsense. The B-2 is the only aircraft in the U.S. inventory that can bomb targets in the Middle East from American soil. That is an incredibly useful capability to have.

36

Great. You “perceive” Democrats as being soft on defense. And that excuses you from offering any evidence at all that the Dmocrats would render the military incapable of defending the country and projecting American military around the world where necessary and appropriate?

Guess that ends that debate, huh? :rolleyes:

Yes, it certainly is. But it’s not a goddamned zero-sum game, Sam. We can have that capability in another weapons system. You know, one that’s designed to fight the next war, not the Cold War.

Besides, ISTR that the B-52 is also capable of bombing Afghanistan from the U.S. It’s also capable–quite unlike the fragile-to-the-point-of-uselessness B-2–of bombing Afghanistan from bases outside the U.S., making it even more valuable than the B-2 on that count.

37

I think Sam Stone has done an excellent job demonstrating that the Republicans are, in general, more hawkish on defense than the Dems, especially if hawkishness is defined as supporting often over-priced and over-sold weapons systems.

However, I don’t think this is the question presented by the OP.

These statistics show a lot. Essentially, the Republicans on these committees almost never, ever take the “pro-Peace Action, i.e., anti-military” position on any of these issues.

The Democrats are being pillared by Sam because they do so a little more than half of the time. And, you have to consider that this is true really only because of the fairly narrow spectrum of what gets debated and voted on. I.e., I am sure that Peace Action would like to see votes on a lot of things that they can’t even get in the door, so that the Dems support for their side would probably be well under 50% if more “peace legislation” (for lack of a better term) actually even got voted on!

38

Where to start…? Here are a few off the top of my head:

Well, taking the case of Iraq, Clinton’s policies led to the deaths of at least 1/2 million Iraqi children. This was acknowledged by his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, in a 1996 60 Minutes interview, and she stated that “we feel the price is worth it.” I love that: “we feel.”

The bombing of a Sudanese pharmecutical plant in 1999, during the impeachment hearings, led to the death, probably, of tens of thousands. I say “probably” since there has never been an investigation, and there won’t be one. But, given that the plant Clinton bombed produced over half of the country’s medical supplies, it is likely that the result of the loss of these supplies led to tens of thousands of deaths. There were no reparations paid to Sudan, nor was there any attempt to help Sudan recover from the U.S. attack.

Clinton’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 led to several thousand civilian casualties, and escalated atrocities on the ground. In the year leading up to the bombing there were about 2,000 deaths on all sides of the conflict. Clinton worked very hard to ensure that Serbia could not agree to any peace proposal, so that NATO (read: the U.S.) could bomb the place, leadiing to the “entirely predictable” result, according to General Wesley Clark, of a massive escalation of atrocities.

Clinton continued support for Indonesia in its occupation of East Timor. Before the 1999 independence referendum, Indonesia announced that a vote for independence would lead to the destruction of the tiny nation. They weren’t kidding. Indonesian soldiers had killed 200,000+ Timorese in the years since the beginning of the occupation in 1975, and there was no doubt that they would follow through with their promises. What did Clinton do? He continued to support the Indonesians, supplying them with arms, military training and diplomatic support. In what has to be one of the most heroic displays of popular action, the Timorese voted for indpendence anyway, in an overwhelming vote. The Indonesians reacted by killing a few thousand people with U.S. and other western supplied arms, and burning the country to the ground.

You want to talk about inaction? We can talk about Rwanda. When the outbreak of fighting started, the head of peacekeeping operations desperately wanted to go in to stop the bloodletting. Madeline Albright worked with a particular zeal to block any action on the part of the U.N. Throughout the bloodbath, the administration was specifically barred from uttering the phrase “genocide” to describe the situation, but was instructed instead to use the phrase “acts of genocide” to describe what was going on.

The main difference between the Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy issues is that the Democrats are more sophisticated in their approach. They are more attuned to the needs of western hypocrites, and are better able to cast their bloody, imperialistic policies in a “human rights” setting. The actual policies that are carried out differ only in the details depending on whether there is a Democrat or Republican in charge.

39

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children.”

40

I assume nobody’s going to make me explicitly disavow that nonsense, right?