EJ Dionne Joins The Caca Defense Corps

11:01 am EST January 24th, 2006 | Democrats | 6 Comments

Rove’s Early Warning

What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line about Sept. 11. Does having a “post-9/11 worldview” mean allowing Bush to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans — including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans — reject such an anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren’t willing to take on this issue, what’s the point of being an opposition party?

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

6 Responses to “EJ Dionne Joins The Caca Defense Corps”

  1. Semanticleo says:
    January 24, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Hillary listening to Dionne? Studying Rove Machiavellianism?

    http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/01/moose-mind-meld.html

  2. Semanticleo says:
    January 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    Obviously we are not fine on national security if you don’t subscribe toa
    moderate point of view (bullmoose)

  3. Dugger says:
    January 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    Agree compeltely. Democrats our just fine on national security from my viewpoint. The positions enunciated bt Murtha, Pelosi and Hodean are plenty good enough to give your party exactly what it deserves.

    Dugger

  4. SaveFarris says:
    January 24, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the security debate.

    They can’t, but they have to try anyway because they know that whenever the issue is raised, they get killed.

  5. elrod says:
    January 24, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Democrats have tried to run away from national security instead of pointing out Bush’s failures on national security. Link corruption, abuse of power and ideological arrogance to Bush’s failures in Iraq and in capturing Osama and you have a winning political strategy for Democrats. In 2006 we aren’t voting for a new Commander in Chief. But we can certainly hang the national security failures of Bush on Republicans who try to use it for their advantage.

    Reid’s statement today is a perfect example of how to talk about national security in a meaningful way:

    “America can do better, and only the pessimistic would suggest anything less.

    In his speech, the President needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong.

    The President can start with national security.

    In his 2005 address, the President said:  In the three and half years since September 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans.

    It took only seven months and the winds of Katrina to prove he was wrong.

    Americans have heard tough talk from President Bush over the last five years, but the reality is, his policies have made America less safe.

    The President s failed record speaks for itself.

    Just over four years ago, Osama Bin Laden attacked America and took 3,000 lives. The President said at the time that he wanted Bin Laden  dead or alive.

    But four years later, Bin Laden is still on the loose and continues to threaten America. Meanwhile, the number of terrorist attacks across the world has increased, and we now face the risk that Iraq will become what it was not before the war: a haven and launching pad for international terrorism.

    Four years ago, the President declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an  axis of evil, whose nuclear threats we needed to preemptively strike.

    But four years& 23 hundred American lives& and more than 250 billion dollars later, we have found that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the problem of Iran has been outsourced to Europeans, and North Korea s nuclear weapons program has likely quadrupled.

    Four years ago , the President said in his State of the Union:  America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity which include the  the rule of law.

    But four years later, we ve heard that the President has ignored the rule of law in order to spy on Americans. We ve also found that the White House given the green light to torture, even though it violated our laws and made our troops less safe.

    After reviewing the Republican record, I know why Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove want to play politics with national security in 2006 instead of having an honest debate about who can keep Americans safe. It s because this is a debate Republicans cannot win.

    Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.

    Democrats know that keeping Americans safe means more than talking tough.

    It means providing our troops proper planning and equipment, like body armor.

    It means securing our ports, nuclear plants and cargo holds.

    It means making 2006 a year of significant transition in Iraq.

    And it means doing everything in our power to protect, not trample, the rights set out in this document.

    Tuesday night, the President must unite the nation behind our most important goal  keeping our people and way of life safe. We need to hear honesty and humility from the Commander in Chief, not swagger from the Campaigner in Chief.”

  6. Semanticleo says:
    January 25, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Myerson on Bush competence.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401163.html

    ’06 and ’08 elections are the bee’s knees for dems. That is, if they don’t
    drop the ball, again.