In my post below criticizing the “netroots” (see also Jason Zengerle at The Plank here and here, as well as Kevin Drum’s response) I made the point that one thing that the Democratic Party ought to do to win was
1) Figure out a strategy for dealing with Islamism that doesn’t involve a) super-ninja warriors who will, undetected, identify and mysteriously kill bad guys without disturbing anyone else or b) NUKE THE BIYATCHES;
Whereupon commenters Chris and Davebo went ballistic.
Let’s review the “solutions”.
Figure out a strategy for dealing with Islamism that doesn’t involve a) super-ninja warriors who will, undetected, identify and mysteriously kill bad guys without disturbing anyone else or b) NUKE THE BIYATCHES;
Yep, I believe it was Hillary who suggested method A and Howard Dean who went with the NUKE THE BIYATCES (YeeHa!)
Oh wait, never mind. Those are the two proposals that the Armed Agnostic believes have been suggested.
Well, at least he’s got his finger on the pulse of the DNC right?Today, the core principles of the (mainstream) D foreign policy are: build better defenses; back out of Iraq as quickly as we can with any grace; possibly say mean things to the Saudis while buying their oil and taking their political and foundation cash (note that the GOP is even better at doing that).
Nope, scratch that.
Um, as politely as possible, bullshit.
Here’s the core issue; there are relatively serious terrorists throughout the world many of whom are in places who wouldn’t look kindly on US troops or proxies invading their territory and killing people.
And the standard line from many serious thinkers close to the beating heart of the Democratic Party is that “we’ll go find the terrorists wherever they are and go kill them!” (the variant being that sometimes we’ll do it in concert with our allies).
You don’t agree? Let’s go to the record.
Here’s the best quote, from TNR’s endorsement of Kerry in 2004:
It is conceivable that, in the coming years, the United States might need to launch military action against another Muslim regime (though, given how greatly Bush has overextended the military, it is hard to see how we would do so). But the war on terrorism is far more likely to require military action within states, to secure lawless areas that terrorists have exploited.
The Bush administration’s misguided tendency to see Al Qaeda as the instrument of rogue governments made it more willing to use force against Iraq but less willing to use force in Afghanistan after the Taliban fell. Kerry, by contrast, seems inclined to use American power where it could genuinely damage Al Qaeda. Even during the Democratic primaries, he attacked the Bush administration for not sending U.S. troops into Tora Bora to destroy Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in the waning days of the Afghan war. He has proposed doubling U.S. Special Forces for operations just like that. And he has proposed strengthening America’s capacity to act–including even militarily–to prevent nuclear proliferation, an issue on which the Bush administration has proved astonishingly passive.
Kerry’s apparent willingness to act within states is particularly important because the U.N.’s obsession with sovereignty renders it impotent in such circumstances.
[emphasis added]
Right then. We’ll go do military-type things within sovereign states and call that a policy designed not to piss off the rest of the world (much less get them to potentially declare war on us, since those actions themselves, whether done by Special Forces operators or Predators would be an act of war). And the UN’s “obsession” with soverignty won’t stand in the way. Riiiight, that’s going to play out well in the intrenational arena.
I’ll skip over the question of whether they really mean it or not (I have a hard time believing liberals would support a covert war of assasination), and grant them that they mean what they say. This is a step-away-from-the-crack-pipe set of policy solutions.
Let me repeat; we’re talking about taking unilateral (or semi-unilateral, with a “Band of brothers” type alliance) military action that results in killing or capturing people on foreign soil, using the people and resources of our military. And we’re not going to do this as the exception, but as the root policy? Are they kidding?
TNR was far from misinformed is taking this stand; here’s Kerry and Edwards in their own words.
John Kerry, Seattle May 27 2004:
“As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation’s power to bear on finding and crushing [terrorist] networks,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech here. “We will use every resource of our power to destroy.”
Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale – to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able – because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’ll add one thing to that, because John and I have talked about this specifically. If he has reliable information that he’s confident of, that a terrorist cell is about to strike the United States and they are somewhere else, he will go get them, before they get us. And we need to be absolutely clear.
Here’s Howard Dean, in a speech to The Pacific Council on International Policy, Los Angeles, California on December 15, 2003
We and our partners must commit ourselves to using every relevant capability, relationship, and organization to identify terrorist cells, seize terrorist funds, apprehend terrorist suspects, destroy terrorist camps, and prevent terrorist attacks. We must do even more to share intelligence, strengthen law enforcement cooperation, bolster efforts to squeeze terror financing, and enhance our capacity for joint military operations all so we can stop the terrorists before they strike at the US.
Here’s The Prospect again:
The Liberal Uses of Power
Clarity in dealing with terrorism, yes; and also in living up to our highest ideals.
By Paul Starr, Michael Tomasky and Robert Kuttner
Issue Date: 03.05.05When facing a substantial, immediate, and provable threat, the United States has both the right and the obligation to strike preemptively and, if need be, unilaterally against terrorists or states that support them.
…
That alternative can embrace, in our view, both a commitment to building an international structure of cooperation and a recognition that, where terrorism is concerned, preemptive, unilateral, and decisive force may be legitimate.
The right of preemption, however, is not the same as a blanket entitlement to preventive war to overthrow hostile regimes that pose no immediate threat, particularly where other countermeasures, international in scope, may be sufficient to achieve the purpose.
So we can go kill people in foreign lands, but we can’t actually – you know the way it’s historically been done since Westphalia – go to war with the state supporting or housing them.
Somehow I’m reminded of The Merchant of venice.
I’m not going to go down the “was Iraq supporting or housing terrorists” line here; it’s a separate debate well worth having. I’m talking prospectively what our policy tomorrow will be and what the leading Democrats in the country are saying it should be (I’ll discount Lieberman and Gephardt because, after all, the netroots will have defeated them soon and they won’t be a factor – joking!)
I’ve talked about why I think entirely covert wars are a horrible idea in the past, and criticized those who think that they are the solution as well.
Another Problem With The “Law Enforcement” Model of Fighting Terrorism
So let me suggest that one powerful step that Democratic thinkers could take is to wake up and deal with the issues that face us in ways that make sense; after all those of us who trust the American voters believe they will know it when they see it.
Setting aside that this is the same Marc who felt invading and occupying a country with practically no connection to those who attacked us on 9/11 was a swell idea, this is just idiocy.
“So we can go kill people in foreign lands, but we can’t actually – you know the way it’s historically been done since Westphalia – go to war with the state supporting or housing them. ”
Frankly I prefer using whatever means are available short of a war with another country to get terrorists who are determined to kill Americans.
Ironically, Democrats fully supported (along with Republicans) going to war with Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban which is what Marc elludes to as his preferred method. But I get the feeling that what Marc is suggesting is that we shouldn’t engage in covert operations within a sovereign country to kill terrorists in that country but should instead declare war on the country itself.
Well Marc, the tall guy dragging around the dialysis machine is most likely in Pakistan now.
Are you saying we should declare war on Pakistan? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Yemen? All have literally thousands of terrorists who want to kill Americans.
And we are still waiting for the Dems who take your second approach of just nuking the biyatches.
Hey, it’s just my opinion. But there are other options to dealing with terrorists than just declaring war on the country they happen to be residing in at the time. As a person who is serious about fighting terrorism, I want all reasonable options on the table.
Invading Pakistan or Saudi Arabia is not a reasonable option right now Marc. For many reasons not the least of which is the fact that we haven’t the resources to do so, the American public would never support it, and the world community would galvanize against us.
The first two reasons are the direct result of your past policy choices. And we are stuck with the results of those bonehead choices.
As much as I’d love your political support, I’m not willing to go along with whatever new bonehead ideas you come up with to get that support and I doubt I would get it if I did.
The point that you and Joe just can’t seem to wrap your head around these days is that the American public thinks you guys have already screwed the pooch, or at least a majority of the American public does. They don’t trust you in the area of foreign policy. They never trusted you in most other areas, and appending the word “liberal” to your moniker is never going to change that.
There was a time recently when they did trust you in foreign policy and you burned them. It’s really just that simple. You can continue to insist this never happened if you like but it certainly doesn’t add to your credibility.
You had at one time over 85% of the country behind you as well as a good portion of the planet. You chose to piss that support away. Perhaps it was all a big gamble and had you won things would be just fine now. But the fact is you blew it.
So if you don’t mind, spare us your version of the democrats plans to fight terrorism. It’s no more accurate than your perceptions of how your own plan is working out.
Davebo – so you’re good with death squads then? After all, “Frankly I prefer using whatever means are available short of a war with another country to get terrorists who are determined to kill Americans.”
A.L.
One of the problems highlighted by AL’s devestating list of quotes is they promote a view that the U.S. is so powerful that it can reach out, find and kill its enemies without any negative consequences. You hear this when people on the Left and in the Middle East complain that they supported the removal of Saddam, but not the war on the Iraqi people.
And further demonstrated here by the OBL-fixated, poll-driven Davebro, a large number of otherwise reasonable people seem to believe that there is a list of Most-Wanted Bad-Guys, the capture or death of which would drive up the President’s approval numbers. I don’t think it would make America safe. OBL is alive today because he either has the tacit support of a state or the state has lost its ability to police its territory. Into such an environment only more snakes can emerge.
Davebo simply is not responsive to the needs of the American people.
Americans know that OBL is in Pakistan. They would fully support raising a whacking great military to go in and kick apart Pakistan, and kill whatever and whoever it took, to get bin Laden, string him up by the heels, and kill all his followers too.
Repeat, lather, and rinse with Iran too while you’re at it.
The challenge is that Muslims have declared war on the US; it’s been a war since 1979, we can either surrender or fight.
Bush has fought half-heartedly and ineffectively (he at least crossed off Saddam which as unfinished business made Osama’s point that the US can be fought with impunity). He at least got rid of the Taliban which the heart and soul of the Democratic Party opposed completely:
*Moveon.org, which placed Howard Dean as DNC, opposed and marched days after 9/11 for ANY retaliation, “Our Grief is not a cry for War” etc.
*Code Pink (remember the folks Murtha and Dean posed with and accepted awards from) and United for Peace and Justice and ANSWER all opposed the Afghan War, called it war crimes, and sent (in the case of Code Pink) $650K to terrorists in Fallujah fighting Marines.
*Joe Biden opposed the Afghan War, as did Moore and Jimmy Carter, calling it a war crime for which we will answer.
Dems are not credible because they oppose any military action that might kill somebody or cause someone in the US military to die. This is why Clinton chose riskless air wars over Serbia or cruise missiles targeted at sand dunes (avoiding UAE princes) to “send a message” to OBL.
If Dems were SERIOUS about defeating forces against us they’d triple the size of the military and remove with unilateral military action the nuclear weapons of Iran and Pakistan, no matter how many Pakistanis and Iranians were killed, and regardless of US casualties. Trading military lives and foreign nationals for that of people in our cities.
Instead I’ve seen Dem comment after comment of “if they nuke us then we should nuke them back” etc. That’s the nuke em all strategy.
Dave is CORRECT in saying that the American Public has turned on Bush. DPW, Immigration, and Iraq poll numbers all indicate that.
Dave is 100% WRONG when he believes that Americans have turned to DEMS. Or “peace through being nice to people” which is the Dem position. Americans are in an angry Jacksonian mood and simply waiting for someone who will articulate an approach to an FDR style mobilization to kick around enemies so completely and absolutely that ala Germany and Japan 1945 no one will even think about restarting a conflict with the US.
Fundamentally, the end of the Cold War makes things like International Law, sovereignty, the Geneva Convention, and everything else a quaint relic of times gone by, like buggy whips and corsets. When the risk is a nuclear attack on a US city by some group protected by elements of a failed or failing state (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, etc) Democrats offer “let’s be nice to people so they won’t hate us.”
The danger: grassroots Republicans obliterating Dems electorally with Tancredo Jacksonian policies.
One positive: Janet Napolitano sending the National Guard to Arizona’s border to stop illegal immigration which is out of control.
PD said: “One of the problems highlighted by AL’s devestating list of quotes is they promote a view that the U.S. is so powerful that it can reach out, find and kill its enemies without any negative consequences.”
The burden is on the people who support the war in Iraq to explain how they think it helps or hurts the cause of fighting terrorism to do just that, but kill not only “enemies” (put in quotes because only the Neocons get to define this term now) but also tens of thousands of completely innocent civilians as well.
It seems your view promotes a rather much more unrealistic view that US power extends beyond the military to include the ability to reshape global cultural, religious and economic trends. That is a FAR more audacious (and misguided, IMO) view of the world. But even if you do believe in this improbable ability, you’ll need to explain how all this can be accomplished primarily using force, the current approach which you seem to support.
And the part about Dems being incapable of considering “the consequences” of their plans is pure straw-man silliness. The threat Saddam posed to us and Israel was containable. It is the Neocons who failed to fully consider the consequences of deposing him through invasion…because to do so might have changed their pre-determined plan to do so.
To think that even after their plans have been so fully exposed for what they were…and are…that there are still people who are willing to champion THEIR cause using all the old cliches and bullcrap excuses they trotted out is, frankly, amazing. That kind of blind idealism has no place in the context of trying to solve real problems pragmatically.
Jim,
I take issue with several parts of your comment.
First, to claim Moveon.org placed Dean as head of the DNC reflects an extreme ignorance of how the process works.
If you have something to support the claim I’d love to hear it.
Second, Code Pink is about as powerful within DNC circles as Pat Robertson is in RNC circles. Wait, scratch that, Robertson has 10 times the clout within the RNC as Code Pink does within the DNC. As evidence I’d compare how many times each has been invited to either a White House function or party sponsored function.
Additionally, I don’t recall Carter coming out against the Afghanistan invasion. I don’t recall Biden doing so either but it wouldn’t suprise me. Biden is an embarrasment almost equal to Noe or Santorum on the GOP side.
As for this little Gem..
Which is wholly supported by solid democrat opposition to both the authorization for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.
It’s an underinformed (or deliberately misleading) generalization that is diametrically opposed to available facts.
But hey, go with it.
As to this.
Well, I’d say I would have been 45% wrong, had I made that claim. Certainly many Americans are as worried about Dems on foreign policy as Republicans. The fact that so many Dems signed off on the invasion of Iraq is part of it along with a long held belief that Republicans were more effective in foreign policy.
But if you’ll refer to the poll summaries I linked to, you will se that, for instance, when it comes to who America feels will do a better job of protecting us against terror it’s a near wash.
PD Shaw.
Do try to follow the thread here ok?
My mention of polls was in response to a comment in the previous post.
But don’t think polls are irrelevent. It’s all part of the representative democracy thing. And a very big one is coming up in about 9 months.
You thinking it will prove me wrong?
AL,
I’m fine with special forces of the US government intervening covertly in foreign countries to dispose of known terrorist leaders by any means available.
When I think of death squads, that’s not what comes to mind. I think of central american countries receiving US funding to arm and train squads to kill factions within that country that are politically opposed to the US favorite.
If we had actionable intelligence that was deemed highly credible showing that say, OBL, or any other high profile target was in Area X of Pakistan yes, I would support a quick reaction team swooping in without authorization of Pakistan and taking the guy out either as a prisoner or as a corpse.
Well, perhaps I’m just old fashioned.
But when only six months after the man had 3000 Americans murdered, I’d rather not hear the president claim “So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. … And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
You are free to feel otherwise of course.
PD Shaw – have you seen neo-neocon’s post on the issue you raise? It’s based on an email I sent over…take a look at http://neo-neocon.bl*gsp*t.com/2006/03/left-and-us-blaming-parent.html
Davebo, I’m glad you’re OK with US forces going onto foreign soil and killing people; I’ll point out two things – first, that’s a clear violation of international law, and the foreign country would be well within its rights to declare war on us; second, that in reality this kind of operation relies heavily on local proxies (that’s how they get intel, get housed, etc. etc. Those local proxies tend to want to defend themselves, and get used as a part of operations – i.e. we’ve trained, armed, and exploited them. We can’t tightly control them, because they are covert in a hostile country; Et la – a death squad.
That is, in short, a lunatic proposal.
We’ll get wars with other countries and create unacountable, uncontrollable death squads/ Bitchen.
A.L.
Besides being astonished that Davebo doesn’t recognize that he would himself be among the first to denounce the very tactics he advocates, I’m struck by another perfect example here.
Davebo’s comments above illustrate A.L.’s point by demonstrating that Davebo’s responses to A.L.’s point is not to enunciate any detailed operational or strategic options but to again define his supposed position as contra-administration.
Robin,
That is why Democrats are so indignant when they are accused of not being patriotic. They do not see any relationship between partisanship and patriotism – they equate opposition to a Republican President with opposition to his major policies. The basis of their opposition to America’s war on terror is that it is being waged by a Republican President. Anything that he is doing must be wrong and evil because he is a Republican President. And those foreigners who oppose his policies, including those who are and will murder Americans, must be doing something right.
Which means you cannot drag these people away from ritual denunciations of President Bush to discuss the war on terror.
It also means there is no possibility of rational dialog with them.
Tom — and don’t forget another plank in the bonfire of their indignation(s): He stole two elections! How DARE you deprecate my patriotism! …et cetera. Ritual denunciations that are fueled by the thing you cite, but take on lives of their own as the fire progresses.
Ex: The genuine weak points in Diebold machines turns into “the fix is already in for 2008 — WE MUST SAVE DEMOCRACY SOMEHOW!” And even more oxygen gets sucked away. A real wind whips at the fire, and some see a spirit in the flames.
By now, we’re at the mature/coals stage, where trivia flashes quickly. But have you ever been to a firewalk? Very high temperature, great for cooking, but it’s really hard to tell how deep any particular spot on the runway actually is. And the specific heat of the cinders is actually low. But you can still get blisters or even catch your clothes on fire, even if the guy in front of you made it through just fine.
So somebody’s gotta do their best to keep answering even flagrant, blinded fabrications, calmly. Simple ain’t easy.
Indeed, Tom, that’s my experience. And why I admire Marc’s efforts so much.
Robin,
The funny thing is that it is lefties, not Democrats, who really are anti-American. Democrats are correct in thinking that they aren’t anti-American or unpatriotic – they just let their partisanship blind them to the implications of what they say and do, even when those are in fact overtly anti-American or unpatriotic.
One of the ways you tell lefties from Democrats is to give them a choice between talking about the war on terror, and talking about Democratic domestic issues. Democrats love to talk about their party’s domestic issues. Lefties don’t.
Lefties would much rather talk about the war on terror because that involves more personal issues, i.e., it’s a vehicle for them to express their personal issues.
Actually, I’m with Davebo on this one. While sending military forces into another country to kill terrorists is indeed an act of war, so is harboring terrorists who are our sworn enemies and refusing to address the problem.
Short of full-scale invasions, and given the hatred and duplicity one finds in most of the Islamic world, there really isn’t much alternative if you want to get these guys. The “law enforcement” model does not work when there is no law to speak of, or when its enforcers are in cahoots with the bad guys. The Westphalian model is a relic, unsustainable in an age of declining WMD curves and terrorists who seek mega-death. The questions isn’t IF it will vanish, but WHEN this century and after what price in lives.
Now, actually executing this policy demands a number of things the Democratic Party will never in a million years support. Which is why the supposed “alternative” is a complete lie as a policy centerpiece. It demands:
* Openness. That is, if caught, the President will NOT deny your existence. The mission will be acknowledged AND defended – and no apologies will be made to the “states” who could not control their territories and would not go after al Qaeda et. al. themselves. As a corrollary, openness requires:
* A formal declaration of war against al-Qaeda and all states who ally themselves with it. It was done with the Barbary Pirates (another band of good Muslims, doing their religious duty), it should have been done on 9/12. Yes, I’m aware this would give the USA causus belli against Iran and Saudi Arabia at a time of its convenience, as well as clarity and a legal basis for its raids in other countries. That’s a feature, not a bug.
* Transparency within the political system. A set procedure for determining which missions and people to execute, including civilian (not judicial, political) oversight. There are alternative tracks that will be operating, a la the stuff in Kaplan’s “Imperial Grunts,” building links with and training foreign militaries, etc. Sometimes, that approach will be the way to go in a region or country. The hit squads are useful and important, but they aren’t the whole war and the hand sinister must know what the hand dexter is doing.
* Strict prosecution for leaks around such matters, with jail time that begins at 15 years without parole and extends to treason trials and firing squads. One is at war, and this is the centerpiece of that war. Treat it accordingly.
* Tolerance for collateral damage. This is war. Our enemies have no honour, and use human shields. Allow that to stop missions, and you teach them to use more human shields. When human shields start dying, the calculus on the ground re: the risks of being near terrorists vs. the risks of ratting them out changes significantly. There WILL be non-terrorist casualties, as well as mistakes. Shrug them off, and resolve to try harder next time.
* The willingness to kill, in numbers, Islamic imams who preach hate. This is the enemy’s true center of gravity, and the lessons of the Hashishyn says this approach works.
* Keeping faith with those who execute the missions. This is dangerous stuff. The worst, most evil thing is to take these guys, send them on dangerous missions deep in enemy territory, then abandon them if anything goes wrong. Because stuff will go wrong.
* The ability to escalate as part of keeping faith. This may include backup forces and airpower on call. It may also involve post-facto escalation, EG a carrier group will be moved near the country in question if US troops are captured, or several if needed, and polite backchannel requests will be made for their return. If that is not forthcoming, there must be serious military consequences. Like kissing the nation’s power grid goodbye, for instance.
This approach would be aggressive, and would, amusingly, fit the framework of understanding of the culture it is aimed against. It would be significantly less expensive than the approach undertaken in Iraq, and any wars triggered by its execution would be short, sharp, and very decisive. The possibility of the US Democratic Party actually backing such an approach is so low that one would require several doses of brown acid just to imagine it.
It’s sort of like the lies about backing a “law enforcement model” as the “alternative” for fighting terrorism, them complaining immediately as soon as it’s convenient to attack a process that listens in on calls from al-Qaeda members into the USA.
I really think that most of you here (save Davebo) really don’t believe America can be both civilized and protect itself from terrorism at the same time.
That’s good to know. But don’t expect the rest of us to be so complacent while you allow Republicans to destroy democracy in America in the name of “security”.
Just look at Katzman’s comments. He’s basically saying he’d agree with Davebo’s (and presumably, Democrats) positions if…well, if he didn’t harbor so much apparent hate and distrust for them.
Even Republicans cannot live up to these standards (in fact, they don’t), showing them to be constructed on a false basis purely to justify a predisposition to oppose Dems.
Tom and Jim belong in this dubious category as well. I won’t even get into their unhinged comments.
Here’s what Katzman had to say: “Now, actually executing this policy demands a number of things the Democratic Party will never in a million years support.”
Wow. that’s quite a…prediction.
You should really listen to yourselves here. You are engaged in a constant effort to smear “Democrats” at every turn, your belief in “their” “unseriousness” is so ingrained. How can anyone possibly be so certain of this that they shut out all further evidence, or any to the contrary? I can’t imagine any reasonable person being so prejudice and willing to make such blanket denouncements because of their political party affiliation. This is precisely the dehumanizing view of “the enemy” that fascist leaders try to instill in people’s minds.
And they’ve clearly been very successful at doing so in this group.
Wiz — “And the part about Dems being incapable of considering “the consequences” of their plans is pure straw-man silliness. The threat Saddam posed to us and Israel was containable. It is the Neocons who failed to fully consider the consequences of deposing him through invasion…because to do so might have changed their pre-determined plan to do so.”
What evidence do you have that this was is in fact, so? Open invitations to bin Laden to take refuge in Iraq? Refusal to comply with UN resolutions allowing inspectors free and full access? Saddam’s long history (over thirty years) of continuously putting together WMD program (Osirak, 1991, Supergun, etc).
What evidence do you have that backing down to Saddam’s provocations and refusal to abide by prior agreements post 9/11 would not simply encourage more attacks on the US? What, because Muslims around the world are peaceful, nice, warm and fuzzy folks? That’s not just naivete that’s insane foolishness IMHO.
You could argue that Saudi, or Pakistan, or Iran all deserved a good whacking before Saddam got whacked. That compared to other regimes Saddam was a lesser threat that deserved attention after them. But to argue that Saddam was not our enemy and not a threat was then and is now silly and disingenuous.
Davebo — Marc Cooper (raging Righty) wrote extensively on how Moveon.org (as Kos boasted) said they bought the Democratic Party, they’ll do what they want with it. Go to Marccooper.com (editor at the Nation) and do a search on Moveon. Dean-o was placed at the DNC due to the overt and matter of record threats by Kos and the netroots ala Moveon to withhold funds.
Code Pink? Dean-o met with them and posed for pictures. Murtha not only met and posed with them, but received an award. John Kerry and Al Gore post at Kos. I’d say the netroots RUN the Democratic Party.
Yes, Dems ARE opposed to any military action. Why do you think Bill Clinton perfected the “run away, run away” strategy in Somalia and practiced it wrt bin Laden (when he might have had to kill a UAE princeling hunting with bin Laden)?
“If we had actionable intelligence that was deemed highly credible showing that say, OBL, or any other high profile target was in Area X of Pakistan yes, I would support a quick reaction team swooping in without authorization of Pakistan and taking the guy out either as a prisoner or as a corpse.”
Joe Biden floated this to his supporters as a trial balloon. [Large deployment of US airborne troops, about 500 US KIA and more wounded.] They too a man and woman hung their heads and said don’t do anything; because people would be killed (theirs, ours). I stand by my statement. Your suggestion as it stands is not sustainable for Dems because it would cause war with the US by Pakistan, and Dems (of the netroots) know this and will not support it. The money people like Babs Streisand, Soros, Kos, Moore etc simply won’t stand for it.
The way to change the dynamic of Dems and National Security is to offer a tougher policy than GWB on enemies (particularly Iran). Hard to call your policy weak when you call for tripling the military and attacking Iran at the soonest possibility. However the probability of Kos, Dean-o, Babs, Soros etc allowing that is about zero. I wish this was not so. But there it is.
Davebo: I am following the thread, you cited an 85% approval rating in the first comment and if I’m not mistaken you have repeatedly cited declining approval numbers to support the contention that Bush has eroded the popular support for any sort of muscular foreign policy.
On the topic of polls, what national politician has the highest approval ratings? In fact, the only national politician viewed positively?
Answer: “John McCain”:http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060302005261&newsLang=en — The Man Who Never Saw a War He Didn’t Want to Start.
Bush remains fairly likeable (60%), but increasing seen as incompetent. The Dems can make two big mistakes: focus their energies on personal attacks on the President (who is going to become increasingly irrelevant anyway) and fail to polish up their own resume for “competence.” I think the latter is the thrust of AL’s posts.
Interesting barometer. Last night at our precinct caucuses I authored twelve resolutions (11 of which passed) to amend the MN GOP Party Platform. Of those only one dealt with foreign policy issues. Does that make me a “Democrat”?
Joe:
Your prescrition sounds like the law enforcement model writ large. Instead of defending fortress America, you have us policing the streets of Cairo, Islamabad and heck maybe even London. It all kind of depends on what you mean by “harboring” terrorists and “refusing” to do anything about. If we look at the world through Kaplan’s lens, these states (OK, not the UK) aren’t harboring terrorists, they’ve simply lost control and the only thing they can do is punish girls for not covering their heads, the semblence of control.
Pakistan would seem to best fit the bill for a more aggressive approach, but how many more times could we violate Pakistan’s sovereignty until Pakistan falls apart? Or how good can we expect our intelligence in Pakistan to be if we increasingly alienate the locals by disregarding their sovereignty? In the long run, I think that such efforts would be self-defeating without addressing Pakistan’s disfunctionality.
_ This is precisely the dehumanizing view of “the enemy” that fascist leaders try to instill in people’s minds._
You mean, like the “Bush is Hitler” meme?
Thorley,
It sounds like Minnesota has some pretty strange Republicans if they love to debate Democratic Party domestic issues and make them part of the GOP platform.
Or perhaps you misread my post. [grin]
#22
No, I don’t, because that is not a “real meme”. I’ve never heard ANYONE in any position of authority or influence say such a thing under any circumstance.
On the other hand, Ann Coulter goes around saying non-Republican Justices should be beheaded and O’Reilly wants terrorists to attack San Francisco. If you want to read a lot more about hatespeach from the Right as part of their political strategy, go read David Neiwert’s blog Orcinus, if you dare.
AL;
Here’s a challenge for you. Let’s see if you’re up to it.
Your general approach in these silly excercises in Dem Bashing usually begin with some cherry-picked quotes from Democrats that you think are BAD…then you go on to articulate why you think they’re wrong.
But I can’t recall you ever pulling up the quotes from REPUBLICANS that you believe are congruent with your view, and justify your disproportional support for their policies. Show me the money, or stop pretending the Dems are uniquely at fault.
My hypothesis is that you are deeply misguided and prejudicial in thinking the Republicans support your views more than Democrats, because I have not seen the evidence supporting this. You have never provided it.
I’m going to move my response to a post of its own, and we candiscuss it there. I’ll say as a preliminary that this is NOT a law enforcement model. It’s a “terminate with extreme prejudice” model, not “read them their rights and let them hire Johnny Cochran.”
Wiz, I think AL’s point is to try to steer the Dems into what he thinks is a reasonable policy re: WOT.
Bashing Republicans, satisfying though it may be, is not a reasonable policy re: WOT.
With Neo-cons, Bush doctrinaires, paleo-cons, Libertarian Isolationsts, whatever, there is, in all cases, a set of principals and associated policy prescriptions that can be discussed in detail.
With Dems/Libs, not so much. Which again is the point.
Wizener (#17) – I wouldn’t trust Richard Simmons to protect me from the Hells Angels, either. What’s your point?
Or are you saying that you would in fact support the outlined measures?
Jim:
Napolitano is grandstanding and has no intention of using troops on the border effectively. She just vetoed the bill that provided State funds for sending Guard to the border: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/40582.html
She’s had the ability to send troops to the border from day one of her being put into office, but she hasn’t because she wanted Washington to foot the bill. She knows Washington won’t foot the bill for a State project like this, and open borders McCain won’t push to get the money either. Then she goes and vetos the bill that provides local funds for a project she proposed, shades of John Kerry anyone.
I don’t believe for a minute Napalitano or that mental midget Richardson in New Mexico are serious about confronting illegal immigration on their soil. Naplitano fought tooth and nail against Prop 200 (the mirror prop to Californias 187 which barred social services for illegals). She has dragged her feet on this for long enough. Worse yet, the troops she’s sending down will be doing nothing productive. They will be sitting at border checkpoints backing up Border Patrol and not actively patrolling for illegals.
My recon team spent months on the border doing JTF with DEA in the mid 90’s down in El Centro, and we were busting druggies left and right not to mention hundreds of illegals. If troops are to be deployed with any effectiveness, they need to be doing active patrolling, not sitting on their cans inspecting cars.
“And the standard line from many serious thinkers close to the beating heart of the Democratic Party is that “we’ll go find the terrorists wherever they are and go kill them!””
Serious Thinkers should be in scare quotes, but otherwise this is very true. Just look at the last couple of threads for proof. The ideas generally are along the lines of dropping special forces in on the OBLs house and killing him. Ah.
I think it is time to invoke Steve Martin’s famous recipe for how to retire with a million dollars- ‘first, somehow get ahold of a million dollars…’, in other words, assume a ladder. If we had that kind of actionable intelligence, the manner of the capture/kill isnt the issue. But we dont so the point is moot.
This is exactly what scares me about the Democrats at this time. It seems like every idea they propose vis-a-vis the war on terror starts with the presumption that whatever Bush is doing it wrong, and that the correct answer must be whatever he has not done. And also that it is easy to do, and only willful obstinance of the WH prevents it.
Recall the argument that the 100 thousand troops in Iraq should be hunting Bin Laden. We heard that a ton, but all it is is a reaction to Bush. On its merits it is insane and basically involves invading Pakistan and handing the Taliban a bunch of targets. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of military application, just as the special forces argument betrays a fundamntal ignorance of intelligence capabilities, all on a nice base of disregard for conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Until a democrat presents him/herself with some air of rationality in their ideas, they will never gain traction. Average Americans may not be experts either, but their B.S. detectors are remarkably fine tuned.
Joe, I look forward to the write-up. I hope you know that I’m egging you on with my law enforcement comparison. Maybe, Team America? (which I haven’t seen)
Wizbang:
The Democrats and Republicans do not operate in mutual positions. The Democrats have the “luxury” of being out of power and not taking clear positions on foreign policy in particular. This “luxury” is a trap which is sprung when the Democrats run for office and have to articulate a position (and explain how their previous expressions have been consistent) to a group of political activists weened on the collective outrage of the net-roots.
Democrats are having success bashing Bush. Some kinds of success though can be self-defeating in the long run.
Davebo,
What are the odds that if I searched among the various blogs that I would find a comment from you making a derogatory comment about the administration of the CIA Predator strike in Pakistan awhile back?
Quoth Joe K, in his bullet list (an apt phrase, nie?):
bq. “A formal declaration of war against al-Qaeda and all states who ally themselves with it. It was done with the Barbary Pirates (another band of good Muslims, doing their religious duty), it should have been done on 9/12. Yes, I’m aware this would give the USA causus belli against Iran and Saudi Arabia at a time of its convenience, as well as clarity and a legal basis for its raids in other countries. That’s a feature, not a bug.”
I’m probably stating the very obvious, but I fear this is another “assume a spherical cat” sort of thing.
My conjecture has long been that, having ended its last declared war through the use of nuclear force, there is a pretty steep barrier in front of U.S. use of that word; and that it will take a trauma on that scale, visited on the US or somewhere that is unmistakable as Our Business, for any such ringing, unalloyed declaration to be uttered.
A lemma of this conjecture is U.S. fear, distaste, feelings of guilt and / or revulsion at the use of nuclear force is in the shadows propping up that barrier. The shadow of that shadow is that the next time “this means war” the U.S. will need to be utterly prepared to use nukes. This despite e.g. all the objective number crunching that shows various WWII conventional firebombing raids to have been even greater abbatoirs. US + Declared War = Nukes is, I believe, writ large and anchored in the hindbrain. Perhaps this sentiment is worldwide.
It’s of course still worth noting that the Barbary Pirates declaration, and ensuing action, is a clear precedent for non-Westphalian-Treaty justified behavior. And I wish it could happen now — Joe’s reasoning is reasonable. But if my conjecture is true, “ya can’t git theyah from heeyah” — it will take a nuclear punch in the nose for the U.S. to utter a formal, classic Declaration of War.
And if ever it does, it will, I expect, be “The Short Form.”:http://www.badmovies.org/movies/buckaroo/buckaroo6.wav 🙁
SPQR
What are the odds you support the Pakistani missile strike and similar efforts when Republicans launch them but not Democrats???
#27
“Wiz, I think AL’s point is to try to steer the Dems into what he thinks is a reasonable policy re: WOT.
Bashing Republicans, satisfying though it may be, is not a reasonable policy re: WOT.”
How idiotic can someone be? Does voting for Republicans count as “steering”?
And “bashing” Republicans, who are in control of all branches of the government, is the ONLY reasonable policy re: WOT, of course. How does bashing Dems help this? It only helps keep Republicans in power whether you agree with their policies or not!
Shorter #28 and #31: “Uh, but, uhh, hey, wait…”
I presume most of you here support “The Republicans” over “The Democrats” in the (Republican-defined) “War on Terror”, but so far the main reason seems to be that “Democrats would be worse at fighting it than Republicans”.
And you accuse your opposition of “BDS” and the like. Seems like unless you can give me positive examples then you’re the ones so afflicted.
Wizener,
The odds would be zero.
#30 Mark
Remember that episode a while ago, when a precision airstrike missed Zawahiri, but killed some other al-Quaeda top member and a few unlucky civilians (assuming they were innocent).
America took a lot of flak anyway.
It’s a case of damned whatever you do, even nothing.
Tom..
Thanks for that. I was honestly afraid you guys might let me down but I should have known I could count on you.
Frankly, this is pretty freaking pathetic. But it’s obvious that the point I was making all along about covert operations into foreign countries to kill terrorists was really just to show how I think the terrorists must be doing something right.
Geez, I’e gone from being “objectively pro terrorist” (what an idiotic phrase the right is enjoying these days) to being a lunatic going after terrorists in ways that will upset other countries, to being someone who thinks the terrorists are doing something right, all within a few days.
Hilarious. But pathetic.
Trust me, I’m really laughing with you, not at you.
Nevermind.
Really? Well I’ve got 6,000 aluminum tubes, a non existant IAEA report, and a mushroom cloud over a major American city that says your finger is no more on the pulse of the average American than Marc’s is on the average democrat.
Nortius,
Declarations of war are not used anymore because Congress during World War Two, and in the 5-10 years after it ended, passed a great deal of legislation giving the President enormous powers over the economy, over people, and over just about everything which becomes effective upon a declaration of war.
Everytime someone in Congress starts mouthing off on the subject, lawyers bring up these messy realities and ask if the Honorable Member of Congress (or Honorable Senator) really wants the President to have all that power. The subject then dies until another Honorable Yo-Yo brings it up, at which point the cycle repeats.
John Yoo has it right in his The Powers of War and Peace. There are degrees of war. The President has the power to make war unless stopped by Congress denying funds to wage that war. A formal declaration of war, on the other hand, is a commitment of all the powers of the nation to the war, and only Congress can make that commitment.
Davebo,
Democrats try to divert discussions of the war on terror to the subject of how awful President Bush is. Lefties try to divert discussions of the war on terror to the subject of how awful America is.
Joe pointed out that you keep trying to change the subject to President Bush. That shows you are a Democrat, and not a lefty.
“Really? Well I’ve got 6,000 aluminum tubes, a non existant IAEA report, and a mushroom cloud over a major American city that says your finger is no more on the pulse of the average American than Marc’s is on the average democrat.”
Not sure what this means but the American people seem to have beleieved what every intelligence service on the planet and the last 2 administrations demonstrably believed.
And speaking of understanding Americans, that hint of glee in your writings on the prospect of failure in Iraq is also something Middle America picks up on quite regularly. You might want to think that over.
Mark
Which says alot about American’s BS detector.
And our horrible press. When only the Washington Times will report that the president is making up IAEA reports out of thin air.
Glee? That’s not glee (and I live in middle america). The glee you perceive is something you desperately need to see, not that I project.
Make a fist with your left hand, then thrust it into the palm of your right hand and grasp it firmly. Then pull it from your right hand’s grip. On the flight deck that’s the single most important safety hand signal. I’d say it applies to this idiotic response.
Tom,
If you can give an example of me trying to change the subject to Bush in this thread, or of Joe suggesting I was, have at it.
Frankly, since I obviously support the terrorists, I can’t imagine why you’d care.
Just curious, does this crap come across as more mature over AM?
At some point during this period, President Clinton expressed his frustration with the lack of military options to take out Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda leadership, remarking to General Hugh Shelton, “You know, it would scare the shit out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp.”109 Although Shelton told the Commission he did not remember the statement, President Clinton recalled this remark as “one of the many things I said.” The President added, however, that he realized nothing would be accomplished if he lashed out in anger. Secretary of Defense William Cohen thought that the President might have been making a hypothetical statement. Regardless, he said, the question remained how to get the “ninjas” into and out of the theater of operations.110 As discussed in chapter 4, plans of this kind were never carried out before 9/11.
Rhodes Scholar, smartest man since Jefferson, two-term Democratic president…get back to us when you guys can bring something better to the table. Until then save us the speeches about what you’d do differently. Thanks.
By the way, speaking of poltics versus policy.
“The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the . . . Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they’re able to,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee”
So should we just assume they haven’t come up with a plan yet and this is just tossing the commitee a bone? Or could it really be that they’ve put some thought into it and this is what they came up with?
Because while I have no doubt Iraqi security forces will be participants in an upcoming civil war, I find it hilarious that Don thinks they’ll “deal with it”.
You’re doing a heck of a job Rummie..
Davebo,
I was wrong about Joe saying that about you – it was really Robin Roberts in his post No. 11.
And I was also wrong about about you “diverting” the subject to how awful President Bush is – Robin is correct that what you really do is define your position on the war as being opposed to that of the Bush administration. I contend that such blind partisanship leads you to positions indistinguishable from those of lefties, who are anti-American.
I regret my error.
Well, as is typical of Robin’s drive by comments she never provided any evidence or exampes.
Care you try yourself? Frankly if you (or Robin) wanted to claim that my position was one of being opposed to AL you might have a point. But honestly I just think you haven’t read any of my comments. Which would go along way towards explaining your numerous “misconceptions” regarding them.
And by the way, I think you’re anti american and you don’t really love you mother.
Don’t lose any sleep over it though OK? I sure wouldn’t over such an asinine statement. Heck, I’m embarrased I made it. See what you’ve gone and done now?
A brief note on Rhodes Scholars: one of my high school classmates, Joe Badaracco, was a Rhodes Scholar. Joe was a smart enough fellow. He was somewhere in the middle of his high school class IIRC. Mary Ellen O’Connell, a college friend and one of the smartest women I’ve ever known, was turned down. Joe’s dad was chairman of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. My conclusion is that the determinative quality for being a Rhodes Scholars is being a good politician not being a great intellect.
Guess I stumped you on that one (#25), eh Armed?
I don’t think you can do what I asked. If you respond, I’m predicting it will be with a fussilade of lame excuses saying you’re “too busy” to justify your views or asking whether I’ve ever heard of Google.
I will view these as an admission of guilt on your part.
“A brief note on Rhodes Scholars…My conclusion is that the determinative quality for being a Rhodes Scholars is being a good politician not being a great intellect.”
Yes, its pretty much who you know, and that implies to a large extent its also the impression you make and the sort of things you say and claim to stand for.
My family and Clinton went to the same highschool. My family knew his family quite well. Various members of my family were active in his early political campaigns, and maintained close assocation with him right through most of his Presidency.
From the beginning, Clinton was a very ambitious young man and he managed to impress and ingratiate himself with certain political actors in Arkansas politics who in turn introduced him to certain people in the Democratic party who in turn began grooming him for the Presidancy. From my standpoint just outside this watching it take place, it was all rather unreal to me. His personal life was so sorted – and so well known to be less than completely savory – that it seemed to me that in the glaring lights of the national press, he didn’t have a chance in heck of successfully running for the presidency. Likewise, he was such a poor public speaker that it seemed to me impossible that he should ever impress the public sufficiently to gain the office. His disasterous 1998 Democratic convention speach in which we was booed on stage seemed to me the nail in the coffin.
(Incidently, that wasn’t the first time I’d seen that happen. I recall him speaking in Hot Springs one time on the 4th of July as Governor, where not only was he booed on stage for being so dreadfully dull and long, but eventually the fireworks company started shooting off shells in an attempt to drive him from the stage. When this failed to stop him from droning on, they simply started thier program in the middle of his speach. I say middle, because I have no idea how long he intended to talk.)
But this was before I understood how you got to be president. The President makers in the Democratic party that decided that Clinton would be useful weren’t about to let the fact that Clinton was a deadly dull, self-absorbed, pompous and bombastic speaker with poor self-control and violent temper get in the way of his annointment to the office. This was before I watched ‘Sixty Minutes’ run what ammounted to a campaign spot for Clinton masking as a news program in which they actively participated in covering up some of the questionable incidents in his personal life. This was before Clinton agreed to allow the political handlers to control his public speach and create the persona that the general public knows as ‘Bill Clinton’.
Of course, I can pick on Clinton in this manner, but I do not for a second imagine that the meteoric rise of GWB from shiftless drunken fratboy to President of the United States has much of a different story behind it. In GWB’s case its obvious. I just wanted to point out that if you know the truth, if you’d been there, you’d know that the same is true for even humble beginnings Clinton.
Wizener – stumped me? Only in terms of scratching my head at what a dumb question it is.
Let’s go to the question: “But I can’t recall you ever pulling up the quotes from REPUBLICANS that you believe are congruent with your view, and justify your disproportional support for their policies. Show me the money, or stop pretending the Dems are uniquely at fault.”
So you’d just ignore the reality of 120,000 US troops in Iraq and 20-some thousand in Afghanistan as evidence of Republican policies which are congruent with mine? Which part of reality aren’t you comfortable with?
How about the 2006 and 2004 State of the Union addresses by the President? And then, yeah, I’ll suggest you go use Google.
2006:
“In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will — by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself — we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders — and for the others, their day will come.”
2004:
“As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian — and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, and free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.”
A.L.
Davebo,
I view this thread pretty much as a fight between Democrats. IMO the Democrats utterly lost it on national security issues some time ago, and will be out of power nationally whenever such issues are dominant in public concern. Now is one of those times. Armed Liberal wants to change that but IMO he’s just spittin’ into the wind.
Right now I see the party as split at the top between opportunists (as Raider owner Al Davis said, “Just win, baby”) and ideologues, with the latter having disproportionate influence with the party’s elected officials due to well-organized fund-raising. IMO this ideologue dominance has the Democratic party in a death spiral nationally. A knock-down drag-out fight between Democratic lefties and everyone else in the Party will IMO result in the lefties winning, unlike the late 1940’s when my father and others purged the Party of the lefties.
And, IMO, Democratic demonization of President Bush is the opportunists’ vehicle for avoiding such a losing fight.
Whatever. You guys gotta problem with your extremists defining the majority. Democrats aren’t the only ones with such problems, but you’re the ones with it in this country.
IMO the party’s voting base consists mostly of ye old mass of relatively non-ideological and uninformed voters who have been Democrats for so long they don’t remember why, government “clients” (chiefly public employees who are disproportionately teachers, but also most anyone dependent on the government for most of their income – lawyers are a good example), blacks, and other ethnic minorities who have been traumatized by GOP racism (such as California Hispanics, but not Texas or Florida Hispanics). You guys are hemorraging the former group for demographic reasons – they are disproportionately of older age cohorts who are simply dying of old age.
The age cohorts reaching voter age, and partisan affiliation, in the next 10 years are getting an Iranian mullah regime type lesson which bodes demographic disaster for the Democratic Party. They are exposed to lots of lefty crap from teachers which contradicts what they learn elsewhere, and they are drawing conclusions from that which will shape their adult political behavior.
#51
If anything, your answer does prove the axiom that if you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.
That’s all you got? Your Dear Leader’s State of the Union Speeches? I guess if I wanted to know what excuses Karl Rove wants all his drones to parrot, you’ve given me that.
Any other Republicans articulating anything that isn’t simply a rephrasing of this claptrap? I doubt you’ll find any original quotes.
I’m starting to figure people like you out. Your entire world view is based on the misty feeling you get when Bush stands on top of the WTC rubble to pretend he’s after “the people who did this” or makes similarly meaningless political speeches that no one listens to except his acolytes.
To you, staying “on message” IS the plan, regardless of how wrong it may be or even if the people uttering these words believe what they are saying. WHICH THEY DON’T!
Your a rube of the highest order.
But Wizener, I thought everyone in the GOP simply parroted Karl Rove’s drones…
So – if I find quotes, they are Rovian talking points. If I suggest you look at Iraq and Afganistan where there are troops on the ground, you ignore them.
Sounds like Calvinball to me.
A.L.
Point taken Gabe — but at least Napolitano and Richardson understand the public demands something even if nothing but lip service.
Hopefully she’ll be paying a political price for her move as you say. I do think even lip service from a Democrat indicates they understand the rumbling volcano.
On a larger issue, Dems do have a means for a genuine alternative (i.e. massive escalation and point-making ala Germany May 1945, or Japan in August 1945.) One that Bush and the Republicans as they stand now cannot make.
However as Tom H says, the ideologues have the whip hand and will not yield.
The great danger is Dems will continue their ideology ala Code Pink front and center, right up to a nuclear attack by Iran on our soil. At that point the Party would cease to exist as much more than an alternative to the Greens. Dems should take cold comfort from Bush’s poll numbers. They are not indicative of a reaction to Watergate and a desire to surrender. Rather a frustration the “rubble doesn’t cause trouble” approach has not been tried.
You seem to have left out this set of Bush quotes:
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
– G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,'”
– G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
“…Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he’s maybe in control of a cave. He’s on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that’s what’s happening. He’s on the run, if he’s running at all. So we don’t know whether he’s in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open — we just don’t know….”
– Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
– G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
– G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
WRT “Troops on the ground”, I asked for QUOTES and policy statements, in balance to your criticism of Dems which never rises above that.
Remember, most Dems voted to authorize the Iraq war and before that all of them supported Afghanistan. So troops are not on the ground there only because of the steely will and grand vision of your Dear Leader.
Wizened One – what?
You asked a specific question; I answered it. You don’t like the answer? Try another question.
But moving goalposts by criticizing other thing Bush said doesn’t convince me that you’re interested in a serious argument, and I’m not interested in playing Calvinball.
So want to try again?
A.L.
Davebo, an example? Your March 10 8:41 PM post would be a fine example what we are talking about. A snide comment but nothing substantive at all.
It is also an example of how your little “standards” for comment content apply to everyone but yourself.
Me:
Wiz:
I think AL voted for Bush because the Dems DON’T have a strategy that he finds plausible.
As bad as the Reps may be, a lot of us find the Dems’ cluelessness when it comes to the ongoing crisis to be a dealbreaker. So those of us in the give-a-damn category hold our noses and vote, Left-Right axis identification notwithstanding.
So what exactly is wrong in writing at length and in quantity to the Democratic Party explaining how to get the Hawkish Liberal vote back? I don’t get it.
I don’t think anyone in the comments section has pointed to what I think is the critical problem with Davebo’s statement, so I’ll do so. But first let me say that A.L. raises an important point with the observation that covert ops could lead to death squads. I don’t know whether that’s inevitable, and suspect it’s a matter of the scale of the operations and our ability to manage the conditions. So I’m willing to grant the possibility that we might be able to have a covert op policy that doesn’t lead to death squads.
Right after 911 my first thought was that if we were not able to strike and kill Bin Laden within 24 hours they’d probably hit us again… only harder, probably with a WMD. Well, we didn’t and they didn’t… so far. But to be honest, I still expect they will.
Moreover, I don’t see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as alternatives to incisive covert operations, because the objective isn’t punative. The objective of regime change is to condition the neighborhood, and in this I totally agree with A.L. and don’t think Davebo “gets it.” The whole point of going to war now is to avoid the “nuke ’em” response later.
But the real (or perhaps only) problem I have with Davebo’s option is that he removes war from the table. That’s problematic for two reasons:
1. An already belligerant and authoritarian nation would not see any reason to either tolerate or help our covert ops if they can presume that war is no option. They theefore would not see a graduated set of options short of war, because they could be confident that the operations approach was the most lethal weapon in our arsenal. That not only reduces the possibility that the ops would be successful, it dangerously misleads them into thinking our response to a WMD attack might be measured by the same considerations. It would not. Period.
2. They might well, as A.L. suggests, be inclined to declare war on us anyway… so our taking war off the table accomplishes nothing, other than to place a belligerant regime in the position of being compelled by their supporters to take a “hard line” Mogadishu-style. It therefore accomplishes the very opposite of the intent.
But, if we use covert ops assassinations, it has to be very carefully managed. I’m not against it, though. In fact, we probably ought to be doing it in Pakistan… and I suspect the reason we aren’t has to do with George Bush’s absolutely terrible sense of politics. He’s simply unable to negotiate the right conditions for it, because even though he may be strategically brilliant he’s tactically inept. Like A.L. I give him the benefit of the doubt, but I’m increasingly uncomfortable with that situation. And I don’t see eny options, because it’s arguably better to be strategically appropriate than strategically inappropriate no matter what your tactical skills.
Oh, bny the way, “Nuke the biyatches”? That would be “none other than Atrios.”:http://instapundit.com/archives/028424.php Boy, George Soros is really getting value for money there.
AL’s point – wouldn’t it be better to avoid the easy way out and not end up having to kill about 60 million people – strikes me as a strong and very moral rejoinder.