From the AP:
Eyeing House and Senate elections this fall, Democrats are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security.
Congressional Democrats vow to provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden and ensure a “responsible redeployment of U.S. forces” from Iraq in 2006 in a national security policy statement House and Senate Democratic leaders were announcing Wednesday.
“We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy  “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security.”
Uh huh. Let’s break down this tough new plan, shall we? 1) Pelosi, you’ll remember, is on-record as calling for the immediate pull out of US troops from Iraq—presumably, the “responsible redeployment” plank of the Democratic “strong and smart” national security plan. In short, we leave the fledgling Iraqi government to the machinations of Iran, Syria, and the insurgency, then blame the outcome on Bush’s decision to go to war on the basis of a “lie” in the first place. The “lie” portion is crucial, because it excuses all those Democratic votes authorizing the use of force should Saddam (who is now out of power, incidentally, and whose connections to al Qaeda are becoming more evident as captured documents are translated) not meet the demands of the UN. Which he did not.
2) The second part—and this is the “tough” part of the Democratic’s “smart and strong” strategy, I take it—is, according to Senate minority leader Harry Reid, to “provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden.” Which, if you are Senator Reid and happen to believe bin Laden is already dead, is a lot like “getting tough” by promising to send special forces into Spain to find and contain Generalissimo Francisco Franco.
Ric Locke and I have both made the argument that capturing bin Laden, while it would provide a nice initial PR boon and lift the President’s approval ratings, is perhaps not in the best interests of the GWOT. In fact, it is perhaps precisely the wrong thing to do. I might add that allowing the insurgents to declare victory in Iraq by pulling out troops prematurely is also not “strong and smart,” but why bother? Anyone with the huevos to float such a plan clearly has no idea how to guide national security—and is instead relying on polls and focus groups and an ideologically sympathetic western media to push a hodgepodge of what they see as “popular” initiatives.
Many of our troops are already scheduled to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2006; but unlike the Democratic leadership, Bush refuses to promise a time table or give troop draw down numbers, because he realizes the situation on the ground in Iraq is fluid. So why on earth would he commit himself politically to something he may then, as CiC, be forced to rethink, should US military command on the ground find reason to keep the troops deployed beyond some arbitrary deadline?
To the contemporary Democratic leadership, it seems to me, “national security” is nothing more than an unpleasant portion of a big political game; whereas to Bush and his Administration, the politics are necessarily secondary at this point. The consequences of failure in Iraq, after all, would be enormous (Saddam declared victory in the first Gulf War simply by surviving it; and al Qaeda grew and became increasingly emboldened by our unwillingness to finish what we start, reading such retreats as a softness and lack of will).
Today’s Democratic leadership’s “strong, smart, tough” new plan simply re-introduces that same pattern: military interventionalism will be limited to theaters in which US interests are entirely absent (this provides, in the minds of many progressives, a moral veneer to an otherwise distasteful military); and the fight against terror becomes a law enforcement problem—they are talking about a manhunt, after all—only this time, they will use special forces units to give the appearance of military toughness.
But ask yourselves? Will they direct our special forces units to operate in regions where they have no permission to act and violate the sovereignty of foreign countries—all in pursuit of a man at least one of their leaders believes dead, and many of the parties left-liberal followers don’t believe to be a threat in the first place?
In short, this bold “new direction” on national security is new only insofar as it harkens back to earlier, feckless Clinton-era national security issues for dealing with terror. The only part that will have changed (aside from the largely symbolic change of personnel who’ll be doing the manhunting) is that the current administration has worked hard to repair the damage to our intelligence industry, which (one hopes) should make them marginally more effective.
Not only that, but we’ll be returning to an ethos of feel-good global multiculturalism (rather than pushing the “universal rights” of freedom inherent in classical liberalism, which is the only way to weaken the rhetorical hold of the Koran on moderate Muslims, who we keep hoping will find a way to reconcile Islamic law with pluralism). And “containment” and “stability” and “propping up tyrants and dictators”—which the liberals of old long railed against—will become the order of the day, even as the Dems showily wag their fingers disapprovingly against the de facto culmination of their “national security” plan.
Meanwhile, sitting on plush pillows in cozy caves, the al Qaeda brain trust smiles knowingly and eats handfuls of sesame candies…
****
Additional thoughts from Bill Nienhuis
update: Via Dorkafork and Bill INDC, a WSJ article, “‘The Last Helicopter’: Mideast dictators try to ‘wait Bush out,’” that notes the “Kissinger of Iran” predicting the US won’t have the stomach to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially leaving the entire middle east to be reshaped by Iran and it’s regional allies.”
Which, while this is not something the Democrats want to hear about their “smart, strong, tough” new plan, is precisely what our enemies are waiting and hoping for—and in fact has been a strategical aim of al Qaedas from day one. The strong horse and the weak horse.
Forget that the Iraqis overwhelmingly see the country moving in the right direction (84% of Shias, 76% of Kurds in a January poll); the real problem is here at home, where we have inversely concluded—thanks to 3 years of unrelentingly negative reporting, and the repetition of rhetorical hyperbole, lies, and half-truths by cynical partisan opponents of the President—that the war is a disaster, things are moving in the wrong direction, and the “proper” thing to do now, according to Democrats, is “responsibly redeploy” [read: pull troops out of Iraq] and go on a manhunt for a single Arab who may or may not be dead.
Which, to return to a favorite theme of mine, I shall again quote Daryl Zero:
“Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you’re only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you’re sure to find some of themâ€Â.
The White House simply must get this message out to the American people: if the Democrats get their way, we will have shown our enemies yet again that we can be defeated solely by propaganda and the desire for power by those out of it, which somehow overtakes their ability to see the big strategic picture, or to care much about the long-term stakes.
So there’s a schedule, but not a timetable? And where did you hear about this ‘many’? I’m curious. How many are we talking here? You said Bush refuses to give numbers, but how many are you talking?
More than 10, less than 200K.
Why do you need to know, actus?
Your ass in on fire, actuse.
–John Kerry visit my website in order to learn what my plan is during a live debate –ALERT!
I always thought it was a mistake to let him crow. We should have put him in a headlock and squeezed until he said “uncle” and then aired it on international TV.
My obligatory “ignore acthole” warning. Offers nothing. Picks at nits. Flings feces. Jumps up and down and chatters annoyingly. Obviously some kind of critter related to the lower end of the primate family. I’m thinking “red assed monkey”?
Seriously if you just do not respond to his inane comments, he will go away (crosses fingers)
“strong, smart, tough†new plan
Incidentally, have they already abandoned the “6 and 60 in 06” campaign they rolled out last month?
I just read, this morning, something about how the islamofascists are content to ride out the remainder of Bush’s term, convinced that the US will go back to the bipartisan, pre-9/11 status quo once Dubya is back in Texas.
That this prospect pleases them ought to concern policy makers of whatever partisan persuasion. But I’m confident that the jack ass party will not allow the thinking of the enemies of civilization to influence their policies one bit.
And I don’t care how much lipstick Reid tries to put on that pig Pelosi, the fact of the matter is that sane voters trust dems to have a vigorous national defense policy almost as much as they expect the Democrat party to cut their taxes. Which is to say, not at all.
Congressional Democrats vow to provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden
We’ve been trying to book Usama on John Stewart’s show to give him an opportunity to tell his side. Then, while he’s in the Green Room, we’ll grab him. We’re close.
Oh…..and the troops are coming home. I can smell the votes already.
—Harry Reid
I think I’ll give this a shot in my own life. I’ll meet with my dissertation committee and tell them my plan is to write a “smart” diss that is “tough” on previous historiographic constructs and “strong” on research. I hope they’ll but it.
Geesh, why can’t they just tell us what they want to do in specific policy terms? I wonder, Jeff, if your interpretation is correct (which would fit with their former policy formulations) or if they don’t have an agenda but are just hoping to ride in by creating discontent and doubt.
And what’s with the AP headline? This isn’t a ‘platform’.
Forget the green room, OBL is tied up in Cheny’s basement getting his face slapped daily by the MEAT…
That’s some great policymaking there.
Because I’d like to compare it to democratic plans for responsible redeployment.
Obviously some kind of critter related to the lower end of the primate family. I’m thinking “red assed monkey�
I read you rls, but remember, Zoo’s make good money selling tickets to people who want to see the poo-flinging and the jacking off.
The same crappy, moronic positions, but with a BRIGHT, SHINY new wrapper!
The really do think we’re stupid, don’t they?
Because I’d like to compare it to democratic plans for responsible redeployment.
Okay monkey.
How responsible can redeployment be if all it is is a campaign slogan?
There. The comparison’s been made for you.
I just read, this morning, something about how the islamofascists are content to ride out the remainder of Bush’s term, convinced that the US will go back to the bipartisan, pre-9/11 status quo once Dubya is back in Texas.
This sentiment was conveyed in an interesting way by Hitchens, here is one example on Hugh Hewitt:
HH: And is that so pervasive as to be irreversible, as we’ve got about 45 seconds left, in the Democratic Party?
CH: Yes, I believe so. I don’t need 45 seconds to say that.
HH: Well then, in 30 seconds, if the Democratic Party returns to power in this country, you get thirty seconds now, what happens?
CH: I’ll just tell you something a very senior person at a well-known network. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I just can’t tell you who he is or which network. I don’t have the right to do it. But you’ll have to believe me, okay?
HH: Okay.
CH: He called me the other day. This is not a guy who’s in any way a conservative, and said you know, we’ve known each other for a bit. He said you know, I’m beginning to think you must be right, because it really worries me what we’re doing, when we are giving the other side the impression that all they need to do is hang on until the end of this administration. Do people know what they’re doing when they’re doing this? One doesn’t have to make any allegation of disloyalty, but just…if it worries him, as it really does, I think it should worry other people, too, and it certainly worries me.
Also, Rep. Boehner has a smack of response to Reid and Pelosi
Actually we are already hunting for OBL with special forces. See the chapter on Afghanistan in “Imperial Grunts” by Robert Kaplan (no Bush Kultist).
BRIGHT, SHINY new wrapper!
That’s even going a little too far. Just “New Wrapper” works.
Democrats won’t face real accountability no matter how badly things go, so I think they have insufficient incentives to get it right. That’s the main reason I didn’t vote for Kerry. As badly as one might suggest the Administration of Iraq has gone post-combat-operations, I know where responsibility lies. Put Democrats in charge, and if things go poorly enough they’ll just place it all on Bush’s doorstep anyway. No thanks.
In any event, I don’t want to see Reid and Pelosi talk national security. Lieberman and Harman, that’s another story. But the DSCC (or whatever it’s called) should know that even among Democrats there are shades of credibility on this issue.
That’ll be new—they’ve been letting said enemies dictate their policies for as long as I’ve been alive.
Dr. Steve you’re right. You can’t just have left Lieberman the lap dog out to dry and then proclaim you are the “tough” party.
Cue Orwell drilling in his grave to the ninth layer of hell on that one.
Along the same vein as your post Jeff, this is a worthy read, for a take on why we cannot leave before the job is finished in Iraq.
Color me surprised that they’re even discussing any details of this fancy new “platform.” I mean, don’t we usually have to put the Dems in office before they’ll discuss their “plans”?
Certainly—and not just from blame-shifting. That’s the whole gist of the idiotic “incompetent” theme harped on by the resident howler monkey—“elect Democrats, and everything will go perfectly!” What will happen is that the press will start reporting that everything’s doing well, covering the items they’ve been covering up and covering up the things they’ve been focusing on. I mean, Christ, look at the way economic news is covered.
I retain a lot of respect for Lieberman, his poor choice of running mates in 2000 notwithstanding.
Oh, and I guess they’ll get around to adding all that extra security once they’ve impeached Bush, since that implicit threat (a sop to the crazies) is what’s going to drive a significant chunk of the money into their coffers over the next 7 months.
This sounds to me exactly like the same plan that Kerry had during the campaign. IIRC his plan consisted of, “I’ll do exactly the same thing Bush is doing, except I’ll do it better and faster”
What’s the dif?
This statement now allows the Dem’s to claim that they have a plan in the 2006 races.
I think that the so-called re-deployment of forces from Iraq into a nearby country will simply have the terrorists start attacking our bases in that new country. Even more so if Iraq falls into a civil war etc.
I don’t understand how the forces would be significantly drawn down either. By the Dem plan, we would move our forces out of Iraq but keep them able to strike into Iraq and we are going to increase the numbers of troops in Afganistan. These are elite troops I understand, so are we going to take them from Iraq or other places? Do we have enough of those elite troops to move about?
Logic Problems with the Dem plan:
If our presense in Iraq causes terrorism and increases terrorist recruitment, then wouldn’t increased numbers in Afganistan & Kuwait do the same thing?
If our military is worn out, defeated, broken, etc. then won’t these proposed increases/redeployment still fail because of this condition? Make it worse?
If we leave Iraq but have to swoop in when needed, does this not lead us to lose any intelligence we have currently established on the ground?
If we leave Iraq, do we stop all reconstructon projects or do we simply give the money and hope for the best?
____________________________
When I voted for Bush last time I did so because I believed that he would not leave Iraq (unless it was stable) during his second term. It appears that at least that will happen. I am now thinking that the Dem’s will win the house in 2006 and that this will indeed give the terrorists hope enough to hang on until 2008.
This&That
Boy, I did NOT see that one coming. Even now that I agree with you more often than not, it’s still funny to witness the remnants of the Republican equivalent of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Not that it really matters. You hit the nail on the head with this:
The Democrats are coming at this whole deal from a number of angles:
1) Their need for revenge for the 8 years of unhinged Clinton-bashing: Bush must be portrayed as wrong on all counts, regardless of how much sense his policies make – just as was done to Clinton.
2) The realization that, with the far left drowning out most of the rest of the party, a hefty portion of their platform simply does not resonate with the increasingly informed American public.
3) Their own lack of any real unifying force other than shared dislike of Bush.
The first one I understand; that’s politics. But the last two are why – despite my distaste for a party that includes people like Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, and Sean Hannity (as mouthpiece) – I don’t really see any alternative to supporting, and actually even voting for the Republican Party, at least at the national level.
This new Democratic national security strategy is a joke, and a fairly transparent one at that. Until they demonstrate an understanding of the nature of the threat presented by extremist Islamic fundamentalism, they’ve lost me, and I imagine a lot of other people like me.
“We’re tough and we’re smart,
We’re smart and we’re tough,
We’re strong…. and we’re smart!
Have we mentioned that we’re smart?”
“Yes, Senator. But what is the plan?”
“To be smart!”
I’ll be more charitable than I usually am and assume that the D’s don’t want to be specific because the circumstances on the ground change rapidly.
The difference between the D’s and the R’s being that the R’s are willing to say that in so many words and the D’s certainly appear to be sloganeering monosyllabically, which certainly gives the impression that they have no idea what they want to do.
They HAVE to explain what they want to do, in detail, and Bush doesn’t, because Bush has actually been doing it and we have a pretty good idea what his plan is.
We have no idea what their plan is, other than euphemistically abandoning the field and dropping bizarre opposites like (paraphrasing): Harping on capturing Osama like it would actually solve anything, then pointing out that the “enemy” is made up of many disparate factions (as if we didn’t know). So we find Osama and he becomes a martyr for the other 99 factions? Is that the plan?
Dictators are juggling nukes here. We’re in the middle of a massive deployment in territory that is not entirely friendly. I’m going to need a little more than “we have policies that are tough and smart.”
The Dem obsession with Bin Laden at large serves two purposes:
1. Useful as an old-school political bludgeoning tool.
2. Personifies the threat to an individual, rather than having to admit that we face a global threat of historical proportions, its current incarnation having incubated for some 30+ years now. By this same anti-logic, one would have to believe that incarcerating Al Capone would have ceased all organized crime activities in 1930’s Chicago.
When you are ill-equipped / unwilling to offer policy solutions to a problem – as the majority of the Left is – simply pretend the problem doesn’t exist, accuse your opponents of fear-mongering fascism, blame us for creating the problem in the first place, and of exacerbating it by responding with force.
The KGB disinformation agents would be proud…
In retrospect, I think too much is being made of Saddam’s willingness to comply with the UN sanctions. For God’s sake, his “oil for food” kickback checks cleared the bank just fine! What does the US want?
This sounds to me exactly like the same plan that Kerry had during the campaign. IIRC his plan consisted of, “I’ll do exactly the same thing Bush is doing, except I’ll do it better and fasterâ€Â
Wow rls, when did he even say this?
Jeff,
I think one of the reasons your page hit count is so high is that Actus hits refresh every 30 seconds so that he can be sure to be the first to respond to your new posts. No matter how unintelligent his response actually is.
I think he’s crushin’.
Precisely. It’s all a game of perception. When a Democrat is in office, the moonbats have no need to howl. The world is instantly a better place regardless of the circumstances.
Democrats do a better job at making loud noises when the opposition is in office. Republicans are realists when the tables are turned, and tend to stay quite because they’re intelligent enough not to howl for the sake of howling. A spade is a spade.
My bad. I should have italicized that instead of being lazy and putting it into quotes. I’m obviously paraphrasing and condensing from the debates last election. My take out of that (and IIRC the take of the RNC) was the sum of the “quote’. Kerry had nothing different to offer, only that he would do what was being done better and faster, because he was better equipped to do so. Sort of like what is offerred above.
It was the gist of the “Kerry Plan”.
The Dems are in favor of eliminating Osama bin Laden? Wow! Now THAT’S BOLD.
I can’t wait to learn their thoughts on ice cream.
Jeff,
Tiny FYI.
In my experience, “Commander in Chief” is always abreviated as CinC (pronounced “sink”) in DoD circles.
Thanks for the blog!
rls,
I am too weary NOT to join your “ignore actus” list. Both as a military officer and as an 11 year member of the bar, I just can’t take it…
“Tough” and “smart”.
Poll tested adjectives, those.
Others under consideration were “stylish”, “bold”, “digital”, “synergistic”, and “Chipotle”.
We have a tough, smart, stylish, digital plan that’s bold, synergistic, and has just the right touch of Chipotle in it.
But I wonder . . .
How many troops are going to be “responsibly” redeployed? “Responsibly” is another great buzzword—I’m surprised they didn’t work “environmentally sustainable” into the plan somehow.
What specific units are we sending into Afghanistan/Pakistan to conduct the search? Have the host governments (especially Pakistan’s) agreed to this staging of troops? Or are we planning to just roll the dice and hope that Musharraf and his nuclear arsenal survive the revolt it provokes? Any thoughts on Iran, Democrats? Or do we just let the U.N. debate it until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?
And once we catch Osama Bin Laden, do we put him on trial at the Hague, like Howard Dean once suggested?
There is one guy on that side of the aisle who has credibility. His name is Joe Lieberman. Until I see him advocating a plan as the nominee of his party, I see no reason to take these guys seriously.
What if OBL is in Iran, which would explain why we haven’t found him? And what if this becomes clear after a Democrat is elected? Will they go into Iran to get him? Will they declare war on Iran if they don’t turn him over? Do we even need to wonder at the answers to these questions?
Brainster and a commenter address the increase of “special forces” part of the plan, which again illustrates their tendency to not understand what they’re proposing.
Do we even need to wonder at the answers to these questions?
Well if they weren’t against everything Bush they could address these legitimate questions, but since they oppose everything Bush answering these legitmate questions puts them at risk of revealing their entire agenda all along to this point has been to oppose eveything Bush period.
About as responsible as staying the course.
Resurrecting Allah’s comment theme yesterday, the Admin. has been containing Osama , ready to be sprung at a certain politically advantageous moment…if Osama were to be captured prior to “tough” plan implementation (Why do they have to wait till majority status in order to be “tough”?) can we expect Democrats to yet again cry foul dirty tricks? Or will they rejoice in this great American victory regardless of whose watch?
They could blame the opposition. The ones not in charge and constantly crowing, acting like a fifth column, criticizing our troops and commander in chief.
That works.
can we expect Democrats to yet again cry foul dirty tricks?
And if they did, I think I’d be in the “Okay-don’t-care” camp. And of course they would.
Bush’s doorstep anyway.
Why should they stop now? History began Jan. 2001.
Re: the fluid situation in Iraq
You can see an example of that in this USAToday piece:
Consider also the “responsible redeployment” plans of Dean (withdraw 80,000 troops immediately) and Murtha (immediately withdraw ALL US troops).
Great snark, actus, but there’s not enough logical content in your quip to reply to it in a meaningful way. You might want to think about what I’ve written (here and elsewhere) before you reflexively jump in to show us all how clever you are.
Personally, I think the Dems would be better served if they said something along the lines of this: “We think Bush’s goals in Iraq – stand down as they stand up – are basically correct. The problem, as the record shows, is that Bush’s people are incapable of implementing them effectively.”
That would mean they’d have to suck it up and stop talking about how horrible an idea the war was,
See, I would think that the best way to eliminate that unappealing image would be to find the cave, find the brain trust, and blow them off their proverbial pillows. I still don’t get how their being left to lounge in peace helps us.
And anyway, actus, work your hypothetical through. Democrats could blame dissenters from their withdrawal policy from causing what to happen through which mechanism, exactly? I can’t see them trying to make the case that the collapse of Iraq happened after we withdrew because a bunch of bloggers wanted us to stay. It’s not really analogous to a policy of staying being undermined by continuous advertising of our lack of political will to stay. The ways in which the insurgents’ responses form a part of the causal framework are fundamentally different, for one thing.
I’m not saying no one would try that tack, and I’m not saying that some of the dissent from even a withdrawal policy would be risible jackassery. But it’s much simpler to have the MSM keep the target painted on Bush’s back.
I have a plan, I swear! Just vote me into office, kindly look the other way and all your dreams will come true!
Ridiculous! How the Democrats could ever hope to recapture the national security position is still beyond me. The first step would be to acknowledge that the facts on the ground throughout the world are real and not some “Rovian Conspiracy”.
Thanks for these numbers.
Failure, of course. Failure to achieve victory is the fault of those that aren’t making decisions. This is a new kind of war.
Failure to withdraw?
What failure are you talking about?
The failure that Iraq will be. The constant crowing will embolden our enemies to attack and prove america weak.
This is really fun.
I’m sure we’ve all seen the bumper sticker that says “Yee-ha is not a foreign policy.” Funny stuff.
Of course, ironic detachment isn’t a foreign policy either. Especially when it’s combined with a certain obtuseness about/unwillingness to consider the logic of an opponent’s position.
If you think you’re lampooning us here, actus, I’d have to say you’ve missed the mark.
Badly done.
Let’s see if we have the facts straight here;
The Demo-rats (who voted FOR the war before the decided it was politically expedient to vote against it) are now trying to re-establish their Nat’l Security and WOT bona fides by regurgitating their umpteen “plan” (see Dean, Murtha, Kerry, Durbin, et al) with no specifics and full of inane promises that any voter with more than a half-dozen firing synapses realizes is total political spin. This is the same party that considers a “War Hero” a man who bugged out of his Vietnam tour over a year early on the basis of at least two questionably awarded Purple Hearts. That thinks Jimmy Carter is a “statesman”, despite being unquestionably the biggest stooge ever to inhabit the Oval Office. Never mind the fact that Iran and Nicarauga became the biggest foriegn policy problems of a generation on his watch. A party that views Al Gore as viable presidential timber, despite the fact he’s clearly a blowhard moonbat prone to pontificating near-seditious rantings.
The thought that the Demo-rats could possibly regain control of the Congress next year is enough to make me want to take a bath with Andrea Yates……..
Hey, how is the old Generalissimo doing these days?
Kinda reminds me of the “Vote for Pedro and all your dreams will come true” mantra.
Except that Napoleon was far more fly than any of these louts.
In a perfect world, poster’s names would appear at the top of their comment. It would save soooo much time.
Speaking only for myself, of course.
I’ll make one prediction: The day that OBL’s demise is confirmed, or the bastard is confirmed captured/killed, the Left will declare the threat of international Isalmist terror ENDED.
Then they can get hot on putting the walls back up between intel and police to keep prying eyes away from international fund raising.
There are levels upon levels where the Democrat party is concerned of why even admitting there is a threat is a BAD THING for them.
Acknowledging that there exists people who wish to kill on purely ideological grounds is a stake in the heart of multiculturalism. Increased attention to international movements of money and government communications threatens their fundraising. And if enough Americans exert pressure to the extent that we should finally achieve control of our borders, predicated on security, immigration reform moves beyond “Conservative Republicans are xenophobic, racist bastards”, which takes away one of their core talking points.
Those pesky Islamists. Pelosi, Reid, et al, would much rather be talking about homeless people or assualt weapons or fairness doctrines, doncha’ know… because accepting that Islamist terror is a real threat that demands a solution opens up debate on solving problems instead of demagogueing them.
TW =”special”. The Left is a Special Needs constituency.
Actus,
I get what you’re trying to say, and until recently, I would probably have agreed with you, at least in regards to the question of whether the type of “dissent” many Democrats and others on the left have practiced is harmful or not.
But I think you have to try to get past the sarcasm and mockery – and even, yes, childish hyperbole – from the right, and think about this: what if they’re right about Iraq? What if losing in Iraq will actually provide the terrorists with just the propaganda victory they need to initiate a real recruiting drive so they can hit us again?
And what if the terrorists really are smart enough to know that they’ll never win militarily, but if they do enough to convince us that we’re losing, they’ll win by default?
Get a map and look at the size of the area in question, then read a geography text about it’s terrain, then, and this is the tricky part, try to imagine the time and resources needed to search every fucking square foot of it. This is assuming OBL isn’t actually lounging in a plush basement in Pakistan, Iran, or one of a thousand other places. Now don’t you think there are more productive things we could be doing than an all out search for a figurehead?
And if we suspect OBL or the current Al Quaeda brain trust is in Pakistan or Iran, what do we do?
1. We can launch an attack right away. Of course, we’re attacking a country we’re not at war with, further “making more terrorists” or at least further driving the anti-war left into a frenzy. Even if we can prove we got them, the left will claim its a conspiracy by Bush to drive up his poll ratings.
2. We can try diplomacy; the police option the anti-war left likes so much. In which case the government of Iran or Pakistan denies they were ever there, giving them time to skip accross the border again while we paitently wait for permission to go look for our suspects.
Somebody good at photo shopping needs to put Osama’s face on Carmen Sandiego and make the d’Emocrats a new campaign poster. I am guessing that is Pelosi’s idea, to increase funding for PBS to run a Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? cartoon program.
Jeez, I thought the dem’s top secret plan was to yell “put down the chaloopa and back away from the table.” Reid’s freezing me out.
A party that is led by a fossilized Klansman, a “war hero” who parlayed with the enemy during time of war, a drunken slob who left a young woman to drown, and a mendacious power mad witch who can’t find law records in her own closet have a lock on credibility.
Having spent some time in the Hindu Kush, I can tell you that “US agents hunt down Osama” is bit more of a difficulty than the mind of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi can encompass.
Their position that we just need to give “US agents the resources” to find OBL presupposes that he could have been caught if only the President cared enough… either mind-bogglingly stupid, or a very poorly crafted cynical lie. You decide.
Everyone is right that losing in iraq is bad.
I can see it now, B Moe: “Today’s program (and really, when you think about it, every day’s program) is brought to you by the letter D.”
And if anyone wants to know deployment/redeployment schedules, just log on your AKO-S account and look in on the CENTCOM page under the J-3, Strategic Deployment tab.
What’s that? You don’t have access to that? No Secret Clearance? ? Oh, then maybe you don’t really need to know the rotations/deployment-redeployment of our forces. You’ll just have to wait for the leak to the NYT like everyone else…
Dr.Steve, you haven’t figured out what actus is actually saying.
If a Democrat gets elected and starts screwing things up, you and I are going to be critical of that, right?
What actus is saying is that by not agreeing with every single snark and accusation made by Democrats we have forfeited our right to be critical later. When we point out that President Boxer[*] doesn’t know a grenade from a gummibear, the Democrats will point out that they told us Dubya didn’t know what the Hell he was doing for eight solid years and all we did was holler that they were damaging the war effort. If they move the entire active-duty military to Afghanistan and tell them to form a line, hold hands, and walk all the way across the country they can get bin Laden if the defeatists will just shut up.
It’s a good plan if you have the media on your side.
Regards,
Ric
[*]just, y’know, best case scenario and all that.
So many thoughts to be strung out together.
An enemy who thinks he has a chance of winning if he can just hold out long enough is not going to be discouraged from trying to hold out when many important political figures and many in the news & public opinion media say that we can’t win or we can only win at too high a cost. (The latter was the hope behind the Japanese make-it-too-bloody-to-be-worth-it strategy in Okinawa, if I recall correctly – Victor Davis Hansen wrote about it in the book he had out last year.)
One does not win a fight with someone who is determined to kill you if you must constantly deal with those who insist that you must play by gentleman’s rules.
The elitist mentality of the Dems, Libs and Lefties is shown by their regular display of “we know best, if you solve the problem you didn’t really solve it because you didn’t deal with the root causes, if we couldn’t solve the problem it was obviously much worse than the very best minds had thought and what makes you think you could have done better” etc. Reminds me of Al Goldstein, publisher of “Screw” magazine, comparing himself to Howard Stern by saying that “we’re both dirty, but we’re clever…”)
I vaguelly (spelling..?) recall hearing that we hadn’t really won because Saddam Hussein hadn’t been caught; but when he was caught, we were told that it didn’t make any difference (also the “Saddam had already been caught but wasn’t publicly ‘caught’ until Bush needed a boost in the polls” nonsense) and his capture would only further motivate & inspire the ‘resistance.’ Should we not expect more of the same if bin Laden is caught or killed?
Look at the time. No time to proofread, work yet awaits…
darn it, i let mine expire…. oh wait….
This land is your land
This land is our land
unless you’re a liberal
and then you’re a dead man!
Cause you hate Ame-ri-ca…
Freedom, Jesus, and Bush.
This land was not made for Commies.
Lets take em all and drowned them out at sea
Make this great land pure and pinko-free!
r4d20:
Yep dickhead. B/c that’s what’s being argued here. Fuck off.
A great analysis on OSB hunting, Ric!
JG has a good conclusion as well:
So, Ric. What’s your take on the message that the White House must get out?
I am taking the liberty of guessing that you and JG might go into more detail and say something in terms of: This is what democracy in Iraq is supposed to look like when the process is finally on its feet?
We didn’t expect it to look like the democracy in France. Or Germany, Chile, Pakistan, or Japan. This is why democracy matters…
The Democrats peddle this nudge-nudge implication that Iraq should have been operating as a democratic nation of peace by now. When the war stopped, democracy should have instantly bloomed.
Has that ever happened in history? Has any nation ever immediately turned on representative government after getting rid of a dictator or regime, like you switch on a light?
This certainly the message that I wish Bush would begin on. Almost makes me teary-eyed for Reagan speaking abilities.
So the Democratic plan is to magically increase the number of special forces (cuz, ya know, ya just tell the generals to make em speshul and they do!) hunting a man they don’t even believe is alive, while they bring the rest of the troops home to surround the ports and keep out the Arabs who want to buy them.
And we don’t think this will work why?
Irrelevant.
The Internet is just not enough, and there aren’t enough hours in the day to make enough speeches. Any message has to get out through the mass media, and that’s the basic problem. The mass media will fire your ass for presenting the Administration’s point of view—Judith Miller, q.v.—so that isn’t going to happen. The alternative is to make the soundbites so short as to be impossible to misquote, but how much can you explain in three words or less?
Note that the “Bush lied!” canard is absolutely true if you accept the media’s paraphrase of what he said. It isn’t what he actually did say, of course—it’s the NYT/DNC’s interpretation of what he would have said if he actually lived up to their stereotype. But it’s now “common knowledge”, unbudgeable. They will excerpt, paraphrase, summarize, abridge, bend, fold, spindle, staple, and mutilate what is said, but they will not report it. It’s against The Rules.
So “what to explain” and “how to explain” are moot questions. Oh, Bush tries hard—his policy is to say as little as possible to the Press, and do all his communicating by other means. There are just too many people who don’t know any URL but ebay.com for the internet to work, and there’s no way he can talk to a large number of people without doing so through the Press, who won’t cooperate.
Pity. Maybe Pinch will go broke; we might get some relief.
Regards,
Ric
actuse sez:
Right, but it’s only the Democrats who want to do it anyway.
Ok, having scanned down through comments, it appears that no one has actually linked to the Democrats’ strategy page. Here it is; enjoy.
“Eliminate Osama Bin Laden”. Why didn’t I think of that? And they’re going to double the size of Special Forces…again. Hey, let’s just declare the entire Army “Special Forces” and be done with it.
I keep seeing this talked about, has anybody ever considered the implications of tying together our energy and food sources?
BMoe,
Although most biofuels are now made from corn or soybeans, the biochemiocal future seems to lie in fuels and chemicals derived from biomass from algae, switchgrass and/or non-food parts of food plants [bagasse from sugar cane, corn silage, etc.].
I’m wondering: was Ted Kennedy behind the bit that puts the windmills in the heartland? As opposed to, you know, all along Cape Cod?
An off-the-cuff possibility comes to mind. As demand for biofuel increases (assuming it does), less of a need for subsidies for farmers as prices for their crops go up? More land farmed? Family farming actually becoming attractive economically again? (Disclosure: my in-laws have a farm and do receive subsidy checks).
Probably accurate, Ric. Thanks for response.
AP did report this:
‘’I want the Iraqi people to hear I’ve got great confidence in their capacity to self-govern,’’ Bush said. ‘’I also want the Iraqi people to hear—it’s about time you get a unity government going.
‘’In other words, Americans understand you’re newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon it’s time to shut her down and get governing.’’
In the NYT is appeared, even.
Nicely said, Slart. I’ve been trying to refrain from this kind of sarcasm, but… it occurs to me that maybe if you believe that the “elite” are the only ones capable of handling the reins, and of course you yourself must be a member of the “elite” because you know in your secret heart of hearts that you’re ruling-class material, yet you’re also aware that you haven’t done a whole heck of a lot with your life that actually justifies the term “elite,” well, maybe you think it is possible just to declare a standard-issue Army guy “special” and he’ll instantly become so. Or even become so after training. (Or maybe “think” is the wrong word to use here, and “have a vague and unexamined sense that” would be more apropos.)
The possibility that not everyone can become a Special Forces soldier, perhaps, hasn’t crossed their minds.
Hey, if the sacred Eric Shinseki can give everyone in the friggin’ Army a black beret, we can make everyone Special.
No, I don’t mean that, but I’m really, really afraid that someone, somewhere might.