How come repubs make this double standard?

Question

they think our president and other officials have made the homeland very safe against attacks in domestic ways (i wonder what imaginary border security measures they are referring to) and then they say if we leave iraq we will not be safe even with the "homeland security" that our president has allegedly provided us all with.
So basically, they are contradicting themselves and also belittling our Intelligence's ability to intercept attacks. Double standards are on both sides of the spectrum, ok republicans?

My point is, republicans constantly accuse democrats of having double standards when they don't realize that it goes both ways.

Answer 1

Republicans are saying the Homeland is very safe? I thought that would let everyone relax instead of living in fear, which provokes them to vote to keep some of them in power.

Answer 2

Good point but your conclusion that there is a double standard is fallacious. The current administration has been very effective in deterring further terrorist attacks. Witness those plots that have been uncovered since 9/11. However, there will never be certainty that another attack will not be successfully deployed. OIf the US pulls out of Iraq at this time the terrorists will likely take over Iraq and once again seek to wage war in the US. So long as we have a strong presence there the threat will be lessened. It is far from a perfect world but be thankful that you live in the US. Good luck to you.

Answer 3

I'm a Libertarian, but a conservative one. I'll give this my best crack.

No, I don't feel safe with the current homeland security measures. I feel as if most of them are misguided. It is a step in the right direction, but right now we are just testing the waters to see how far we can go, how far we need to go, etc. Some things are working out, some arent.

No, I don't feel as if retreating from Iraq would pose a significant risk to us. However, it would undermine their fledling democracy. (Which, by the way, is infinitely better in the long run than whatever Hussein would have provided them with.) Having started this "mess", we feel obligated to help protect them until they have a firm footing, both domestically and internationally.

Just think. If America, arguably a modern superpower, is struggling with the hit and run and kamikaze tactics of terrorists, how much worse off would Iraq be with nothing but a rookie police force? They would utterly collapse, or even worse, be overrun by another militant, murderous dictator.

Answer 4

You are absolutely right.
But this is what the republican party is all about. Whether it be fiscal responsibilty, gays, ethics, and the like.
This is, or should i say was the only way they could stay in control and rule with unfettered power. Which was to scare enough voters into believing them.
Here is what the Bushies did.
They created a problem w/Iraq that didn't exist brought it to a crisis. And then offered a solution.
Problem was - there solution has backfired on them.

Answer 5

You shouldn't claim 'repubs make...' that is incorrect bc I lean a little to the right but am totally disappointed with this Cabinet. What blows my mind is pres GWB & cab are the top officials of a historically great nation and get paid to sustain & protect US and what has happened? US gets attacked w/country divided as to it's authencity, US goes & catches Hussein, US decides to stay over, hundreds of thousand of people are getting killed off, US military sent in with inferior gear and unadvantageous number of back-up, other nations are witnessing this display of 'lack of insight' and pres of Iran sent pres Bush a letter to convert to Islam or the consequences will come. We're loosing our rights slowly but surely(due to 911) and two Border Patrol Guards chase & catch a drug-runner and shot in self-defense. The poor traffiker who got shot bc wouldn't obey BP was visited by US given amnesty and is suing for $5,000.000 US. This isn't the America I know and love.

Answer 6

I brought this up in response to another question.

Republicans say if we don't fit them there, we'll be fighting them here. Which acknowledges that the Bush administration is incompetent to prevent future attacks.

But they say Bush has protected us for 5 yars with no attacks. That says not only are they competent, they are superhuman.

So which is it?

Answer 7

Listen, we aren't being attacked right now, right? So whats your beef? It's common knowledge the terrorists said they will fight us on their land or ours and we've chosen theirs. Now if you want to go pull everyone out and bring them back here then we'll bring the war back with them. The Mexican border neither party wants to touch cause they want the Latino's votes. With your oh so great Demos in the White House now we'll see what they do with the border, it won't be the republicans problem anymore.

Answer 8

you can't influence a vote by telling people they are secure. to campaign on security, you have to tell them they are not secure, and make them see that.

conversly, you can't claim a victory if you can't make them more secure either. so republicans take baby steps where giant leaps are needed.

without war and security, republicans are only left with smear games to campaign on.

Answer 9

the point is if we dont stabilize iraq then we will be more vulnerable to attack by terrorists