September 23, 2006
"Do you really think that's the place for a thousand words of pitchfork-waving, tax-cut-hating, populist agit-prop?"
Howard Dean is asked by Kevin Drum, who reminds him "Dude. You were writing in the fucking Wall Street Journal." Quite aside from what one ought to say in the Wall Street Journal, Drum is anguished that the Dems seem to be turning away from the idea of making national security their central issue. Liberal bloggers seem to be freaking out about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
The Dean op-ed was terrible, and a very worrisome sign that the Roll Call article was accurate.
Also supporting the theory that Democrats will avoid national security is their wallflower approach to the detainee legislation.
I had hoped that they were going to let the Republicans fight and then come out against the "compromise" that still legalizes torture. But a somewhat better-sourced article in the NYT suggested that's not the case. It says something like: Most Democrats will stand behind McCain.
Putting aside the moral and legal issues, isn't this just a terrible place for Democrats to be politically? Hiding behind John McCain because they are so scared of being labeled Soft on Terror (or even pro-Terrorist)?
The longer the American people see the middle ground as being between Bush and McCain, the worse off the Democrats will be.
Fenris -
That's interesting. Is there really that line of thinking on the right? That if the Democrats are just completely inept, Republicans will sort of lose their edge?
It seems like looking a gift horse in the mouth, ya know? They seem to be more about the winning than the mastery of the craft.
Clearly, their craft is on another level than the Dems, though.
Doyle asks,
"Is there really that line of thinking on the right? That if the Democrats are just completely inept, Republicans will sort of lose their edge?"
Believe it or not, Doyle, there actually are people on the right who care about the future of the country -- and think that an effective and sane opposition is necessary for the health of our system of government.
I skimmed the Chairmn's WSJ oped. He tried to give the impression Americans are in the pit of long econmic depression.
You know the MSM overplays negative economic reports and downplays the psitive. For instance, did any of you know that median household credit card debt is Zero?
Notice how Dean really didn't address the terror issue in his piece, in contrast to Mehlman's essay? It's an economic attack on the GOP, but wasn't too compelling, as unemployment's still low, gas prices are coming down, etc. Makes for good class warfare, in any case.
Burkean Reflections
I remember hearing that over at kos they were completely ignoring the whole Israel/Hezbollah conflict when it was going on. How committed can they really be to national security issues either? It's just seems like the only consistent message from the democrats is, whatever they think they can say to get back in office. So they'll pick up or drop issues as the winds change. That's why they can't ever seem to come up with any real comprehensive, comprehensible plan on Iraq.
And god no, I don't want my only option to be to vote for republicans. But no one on the democrat side has taken that "Persuasion 101" course yet, as far as I can tell. Most especially hothead Dean.
Bush's plan in action
Yeah, that whole article smacks of, don't do anything, you'll piss them off. Yeah, they're already pissed off, but it'll get Even Worse!
The administration has repeatedly claimed that we are safer now than we were on 9/11/01.
Bush's grand plan to defeat terror with freedom hinged on the successful installation of a democracy in Iraq.
While Iraq does have a Democratically elected government, it is weak as a kitten and sectarian violence is out of control.
The threat that the invasion was supposed to eliminate (a Saddam-controlled nuke) never existed, and the threat that did exist (terrorist attack) has gotten worse.
So the heightened risk of terror attack means we're winning? Grand.
Yeah, that whole article smacks of, don't do anything, you'll piss them off.
OMFG.
If "doing something" in this case didn't actually make America any safer, but made us less safe, and cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars, then what possible rationale could there be for having engaged in it?
wow, not just OMG but OMFG
Patience padawan - nation building is not like jiffy-pop.
No, the explosions are slightly less frequent.
Saddam was prepared to reconstitute his WMD program once sanctions were lifted [which is what France and Russia were pushing for].
Lowest threshold for "imminent threat" ever, and clearly not the one the administration claimed.
Feindoyle:
Clinton and his legions of fans turned scarlet over being "blamed" for letting 9/11 happen, yet all you seem to do is want to blame, blame, blame. I know the reality-based community dreams of time travel, but you can't actually go back and stop the Iraq war. The question facing you and those that languish in your area of the political Venn diagram is what do we do now? What do we do in the future. Yes, yes, we know you think it was wrong, a lie, a war crime, a floor wax, a dessert topping, whatever. You've chanted that at us and to us many, many times. But what will you do about Iraq, about security, about Iran, about the swaggering, Chomsky-promoting little homunculus that rules Venezuela? Do you have any ideas or do you just point fingers?
wow, not just OMG but OMFG
Just a step away from the dreaded OMFGROFL.
What do we do in the future.
Well, maybe elect people who recognize (as opposed to make a glib, dated joke about) what a disaster the Iraq War has been, and reject the tragically stupid neocon agenda in toto.
Its remaining defenders should be run out of both parties.
Yes Knoxgirl:
That is a great way to describe the average Dem-they really believe you can avoid the bully in the schoolyard forever.
They just don't get that sooner or later you have to tell your kid to smack the bully in the mouth.
And Howard Dean is a former wrestler (I believe) so he should know that.
Well one thing I think we should do is take the money we're spending on ballistic missile defense and spend it on the threat that has actually materialized. North Korea is the closest to being able to hit us w/ an ICBM and their most successful missile landed in the Sea of Japan.
We also don't really need to be coming up with new fighter planes for air-to-air combat. The Islamic terrorists are short on MIGs.
Too much money is being poured into high-tech R&D, while the return on investment would be much higher if we incentivized college students to learn Arabic. We could offer massive signing bonuses to Arabic-speaking CIA analysts with a fraction of the money that gets squandered in the military-industrial complex.
I'm no military expert, but I feel like there are some military experts in the Democratic Party.
But really, why is the onus on the Democrats to prove they're "good" at national security when mere competence would be a huge improvement from what we've been seeing?
Well one thing I think we should do is take the money we're spending on ballistic missile defense and spend it on the threat that has actually materialized. North Korea is the closest to being able to hit us w/ an ICBM and their most successful missile landed in the Sea of Japan.
This may be the dumbest thing I've read on the internet this month.
Gahrie's entire blog post from Monday:
The funniest TV I have seen in months was the 2 minute intro to the season premire of Two and a Half Men that just played.
Fenris I thought this would be your wheelhouse :-)
I'm not talking about SDI. I'm talking about the hit-to-kill interceptor system which they just had the very first successful test of.
I took class with William Perry that dealt extensively with this issue. Sec. Perry is by no means soft on N. Korea (he recommended blowing up the recently fired Taepodong II on the launchpad).
There are many reasons, from the sheer improbability of an ICBM attack, to the technological challenges of distinguishing decoys, etc., to the thin record of success in testing, that this is a waste of money.
All the more so when you consider how many obviously helpful military expenses (body armor, for example) are going underfunded.
Incoherence?
War on Iraq was supposed to be necessary and security-enhancing. It was neither.
I'm not convinced immediate withdrawal is a good idea. But even if staying is now necessary, the people responsible should be voted out of office.
But really, why is the onus on the Democrats to prove they're "good" at national security when mere competence would be a huge improvement from what we've been seeing?
Well, let's see. Maybe because Bush's run is a huge improvement over what we saw from the last Democratic Administration?
See, after February 26th, 1993, when a plot to destory the World Trade Centers misexecuted, we didn't need CIA analysts to tell us that, in their opinions, the threat from terror was growing. The shattered husks of the Murrah Federal Building, Khobar Towers, and embassies in Kenya and Tanzania told us. The USS Cole bombing told us. And September 11th, 2001 certainly told us.
We're less safe now than before Bush's post-9/11 policies came into effect? Show me the successful terrorist attacks on the United States.
Doyle wants to cut research into cutting edge military projects.
Does Doyle not understand that this research almost always yields genuinely useful civilian advances? Does Doyle realize how unaware he seems, posting on the internet for goodness sake (a military creation), when he wants to limit basic military research?
It is. To. Laugh.
This IS the worst attempt at an ad hominem I have read on the internet this month:
Gahrie's entire blog post from Monday:
The funniest TV I have seen in months was the 2 minute intro to the season premire of Two and a Half Men that just played.
Who the hell cares what I posted on my blog you hack?
Anyone who thinks that the best course for the USA in a time of rampant terrorism and unchecked nuclear proliferation is to scrap a ballistic missile defense program is just plain nuts.
Doyle - hmm...it sounds like you went to school at Stanford. Bill Perry's IR class?
Doyle perfectly illustrates the soon-to-be fatal flaws of the Democrats on defense and national security, notwithstanding his once taking a class from former Sec Def William Perry.
Dems have no sense whatsoever about the nature of this war; no sense about our enemy; no sense about what animates our enemy; no sense about how we attack our enemy; no sense as to why we should attack our enemy.
Too many Democrats don't even think we should be at war.
Since '68, the critical mass of the Democrat Party has been profoundly against material efforts to bolster U.S. national security. There isn't a defense program they haven't wanted to cut; a defense budget they haven't wanted to cut; troops they haven't wanted to draw down, ships they haven't wanted to decommission; air wings they wanted to mothball.
And when troops are deployed, as in Somalia, their first instinct is to quit the battlefield at the first sign of trouble. Such summer soldiers only encourage our enemies.
The same is true of our intelligence capabilities. They have yet to recover from the evisceration of capability inflicted upon them by Stansfield Turner and the Church Committee.
And because the mass of Democrat primary voters are anti-national security, they'll never nominate a candidate who can credibly defend America - at least not in the first term, or do so an remain a Democrat. CodePink and Cindy Sheehan wouldn't stand for it. The best they can do is a poseur like Kerry, who suggests he has the necessary resume, but everyone knows he'll just cut and run.
Democrats are to national security what cancer is to healthy body. Trusting Democrats with national security is like trusting a child molester with a daycare center.
Democrats want McClellan; Americans want Grant. McClellan dithers, preseverates, mulls, waits, finds every reason not to engage the enemy despite his superior forces and cedes the initiative to the enemy. And loses. And loses again. Grant takes the fight to the enemy, puts him back on his heals, hits him again, and again, and again, and wins.
Post a Comment