’)Kevin Drum is wondering how hard-nosed Democrats should be on the issue of security and terror in 2006. My answer is what it has always been: very.
(Nobody has listened to me so far and they’ve lost in 2002 and 2004. I don’t pretend to have all the answers but punting when you’re down in the fourth quarter just seems asinine to me.)
Democrats should take every answer to ask “are you safer now than you were six years ago?” Republicans will reliably answer yes and say that we’ve “had no major terrorist attacks since” 9/11. But that’s not the question, and I don’t think its what most people have in mind.
WE STOPPED AN AIRPLANE FOR FACIAL CLEANSER TODAY.
SOON, W’ERE GOING TO “FIGHT TERROR” BY REALLY STARING HARD AT PEOPLE.
Again, “are you safer now than you were six years ago?” But first, throw away your g-d lip gloss and take off your freaking shoes so the guy at the airport can feel you up!
“Are you safer now than you were six years ago?”
No, we’re not.
Every year of the Bush administration has seen terrorism increase (no matter how hard they try to cook the numbers). The perpetrators of 9/11 are still on the loose and their organization is growing. We’re the richest country in the world but we don’t have infinite resources. The force and time we are spending to police Iraq’s civil war could be spent smashing terror networks, infiltrating them in the same law enforcement manner with which the UK has.
This is the issue, this is vital, this is the path to save America.
I agree, we’re not safer, we just apply band-aids and one-off solutions (re: the wiretapping debate below). I am eager to see a shift in the balance of power in the House and Senate, and I comfortably predict a Democrat will occupy the White House.
However, “are you safer than you were six years ago”, albeit a good campaign slogan, doesn’t offer a solution. In concert with that chorus, Democrats need to offer solutions or the Right will tear them apart as the ‘whiney Left that complains a lot, and doesn’t offer an alternative.’
I want to see Democrats come out hard for security, and offer some positive initiatives that people can sink their teeth into. Then they’ll sweep through the House and Senate, and it’ll be about time.
That’s good advice vis-a-vi Iraq.
The perpetrators of 9/11 are dead. Unless you’ve got some new intel on Mohammad Atta I’m unaware of.
Americans are tired of the BS. Banning gel bras and taking off your shoes for inspection have nothing to do with making Americans safer.
While most of us “go along to get along”, we are tired of this nonsense. I am convinced that a candidate who runs on a platform of “if you elect me, all the bs at the airport ends” will win in many districts.
but punting when you’re down in the fourth quarter just seems asinine to me.
That’s good advice vis-a-vi Iraq.
Good to see that farris finally admits that we are losing in Iraq.
“I want to see Democrats come out hard for security, and offer some positive initiatives that people can sink their teeth into. ”
Uh, maybe you should read a newspaper instead of RW talking points. Dems have been pushing for port security for years. Dems have also been a lone voice pushing for funds to secure power plants, chemical plants, and other potential targets. And we also want to direct Fatherland Security funds to cities that are at risk for terrorism, rather than use the funds as a slush fund for Chimpie contributors.
We’re not in the last quarter of Iraq, at best, we’re in the second quarter. And we’re down by a hell of a lot more than a touchdown.
The perps behind 9/11 was OBL. He’s alive, I know you don’t care, but some of us do.
Steve, the left has offered a lot of solutions, but we have neither branch of the gov’t. As factcheck has pointed out, its a standard issue GOP talking point. What smart national security strategy has the right offered? Invade the wrong country and ignore terrorists? Ok, our policy is “not that”.
Down more than a touch down in the fourth? Bush is signalling for the hit and run.
The abundance of easy targets in Iraq has really kept those terrorists busy. Good strategy, bring the targets to the evildoers so they don’t have to travel here. Helps with the immigration problem too. Breeelliant!
And Steve, remember the Department of Homeland Security? Democratic idea. Although I don’t think they included the all important crony affirmative action plan. Port security, upgrading first responder equipment, 9-11 commission, following the 9-11 commission’s recommendations, working with other countries to catch terrorists…
Republican initiatives: create a new terrorist breeding ground in Iraq, ignore afghanistan, ignore pakistan, antagonize Iran and North Korea into aggressively pursuing WMDs, ignore Osama bin Laden, encourage China to dramatically increase their military budget, expose CIA covert assets, spy on American citizens, spend as many resources investigating domestic anti-war groups as they do combatting Al Qaeda, reducing our military readiness, 9-11…
MMMMMMM, National Security.
…precicely why I want a balanced government, and for the Dems to take back at least a portion of it, and perhaps more than that. A single party government is a failure. The republicans have sat on their hands and spent money faster than the Dems they vilify.
I agree with your points, about Democrats coming up with national security policy. But the marketing hasn’t worked if the average guy in the street isn’t aware of the source of some good ideas.
I simply don’t think the Dems have done an effective job of marketing their ideas and appealing to the public. Lieberman was a mixed message to a lot of people. I liked the dude, but he was highly unpopular within the party because of his views of the war. But a person outside of the party like me doesn’t understand that.
The Pubs have honestly been dominating in the arena of marketing, an expertise that has traditionally favored Dems.
Rove is banking on crying wolf as proof that the GOP is
’strong’ and ’serious’ about security. The only question is whether the saps he usually plays to are on to him yet.
Well, let’s see, the Brits foil a terror plot, using pretty much the techniques y’all say are illegal here. If someone suggests that perhaps Arabic looking or named individuals ought to receive closer screening, you scream about profiling, and claim that’s a no-no, too. If someone suggests that we need to secure our borders, you claim it’s racism.
It’s one thing to say that y’all are for better security, but it’s going to be seen as a political platitude unless you can come up with real suggestions that address real problems, and aren’t being seen as tailored around political correctness bovine feces. If you are seen as caring more for the “rights” of terrorists than in preventing future terrorist attacks, no one is going to believe that y’all are the party of security.
One thing you’ve got to understand is the difference between good police work and fighting enemies. I’m seeing a lot from my friends on the left about using “good police work” in the war against terror. The trouble is, good police work is the investigation and solution of a crime that has already occurred. In fighting enemies, you go after them, and kill them, before they get the chance to attack you. And the most prominent guy in your party who understood that just lost his primary campaign due to the hard left of your party!
I’ll believe you on security when you present a real, workable plan, and get the main body of the Democratic Party behind it to support it.
Nice work Dana. I could care less about terrorist’s rights. I doubt anyone on the left cares about terrorist’s rights. I care about MY rights and your rights. And the only way to protect my rights and your rights is to make sure they apply to everyone. When you start selectively applying constitutional rights you start down a scary road. Terrorists don’t get rights. How about organized crime? That’s like terrorism. They don’t get rights. Drug dealers, they are bad. No rights for them. Street gangs. I don’t like them, no rights. Murderers. Fuck em. Bank robbers and muggers, screw them too. Etc Etc Etc. Then you make your way to political activists, anti-war demonstrators, abortion doctors, anyone not represented by the party in power, journalists, etc.
Next, Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. Or more specifically Al Qaeda. Many on the left feel that going after terrorists in other countries should involve going to where there are actual terroists and getting them. Like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where the governments give or gave them free rein and support.
Of course now Iraq is a terrorist hotbed, recruiting center, fund raising center, munitions dump, and shooting range. If this is the goal the pro-war nutjobs had for this Iraq invasion, one has to seriously wonder about their priorities and patriotism.
We’re not in the last quarter of Iraq, at best, we’re in the second quarter. And we’re down by a hell of a lot more than a touchdown.
There’s always the Hail Mary pass.
There’s quibbling over semantics and then there’s Farris. “The perpetrators of 9-11 are dead”? So it was all their idea, and they weren’t part of any greater movement, the whole conspiracy was entirely confined to the twenty-whatever-it-was people who actually hijacked the planes? Wow, that’s a relief.
Well, let’s see, the Brits foil a terror plot
The Brits foiled nothing, it appears. Perhaps under pressure from the Bushies, perhaps because they sought their own screaming headlines, elements of the Blair administration blew the whistle on what looks like a lot of hot air.
The Timing is Political
Midderpidge wrote,
“Of course now Iraq is a terrorist hotbed, recruiting center, fund raising center, munitions dump, and shooting range.”
But Iran certainly is, and we didn’t invade Iran.
Sudan certainly is, and we didn’t invade Sudan.
Since the unilateral Israeli withdrawal The Gaza Strip is, and we didn’t invade the Gaza Strip.
The West Bank certainly is, and we didn’t invade the West Bank.
Lebanon certainly is, and we didn’t invade Lebanon.
Syria certainly is, and we didn’t invade Syria.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia both raise millions for terrorism. So does the UAE. We didn’t invade those nations.
So I think that your implication, “American military intervention causes terrorism” is false.
The Iraqi factions that are now engaged in “civil war” (much to the delight of liberals, I should note) were suppressed by Saddam Hussein through imprisonment, torture, and murder by the hundreds of thousands.
This is the same tactic used by the Soviet Union to suppress regional and ethnic factions. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the fighting broke out again among those factions, and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands died. Yet you would be hard-pressed to find even a liberal who would argue that those people were “better off” under the boot of the Soviets.
Likewise, it would be hard to find a liberal who would argue that continental Africans were “better off” under the colonial boot of the English, French, and Dutch. Yet millions of Africans have been slaughtered in post-colonial tribal wars and by violent post-colonial regimes like those of Charles Taylor and Idi Amin.
Before everyone misunderstands — I am not suggesting that the US removal of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the sectarian fighting in Iraq. But what I am asserting is that sectarian violence is a common occurrence once the shackles of an iron-fisted government are removed from an oppressed people.
That being the case, I cannot understand why liberals are so quick to make the US into a special-case villain.
“And the most prominent guy in your party who understood that just lost his primary campaign due to the hard left of your party!” Dana
I hears this nonsense over and over again by people on the right who like to create mysths and repeat them over and over again until even they believe it to be true.
The hard left, Dana? The war in Iraq is unpopular with most in the middle as well. You don’t have to be an extreme far left liberal to see that the war policies of this administration are an utter failure. Though you do have to be a member on the far right fringe to believe those same policies are a success.
I’ve read that Common Dreams article, and I’m not sure – there aren’t any really, really big scandals for the Blair administration to cover up right this instant, and Bush probably would have wanted a fake crisis to occur maybe four weeks later, closer to Nine Eleven. I think it was inflated, but basically mostly real.
Mike:
Whose implication exactly? Because it’s no-one here. Sure, plenty of people have said that the American military intervention in Iraq has stoked the fires of terrorism, but that’s not the same thing. Now. Is. It?
And no. You didn’t invade the UAE. You just gave them six of your major seaports to play with.
You would think this wiretapping thing would be a simple concept for a wingnut to grasp. Here’s how it works, for the danas, farrises and other fungus-amongus:
Warranted wiretapping good. Warrantless wiretapping bad.
Mike, you just made a very convincing list. With a list of active anti-American terrorist supporting states we had no business tying up our Army in Iraq. Now when we beat our wardrum to scare Iraq, it seems very hollow.
My contention is that by invading Iraq, we created a state that promotes, expands, arms, and advances anti-American terrorism, as well as providing nearby American targets for these terrorists to attack.
When the GOPers toss out the “no attacks since 9/11″, you might bring up the Anthrax killer.
I prefer to bring up the tiger-repellent rock.
I have a terrorist repellant cat. Ever since we adopted her- no terrorist attacks on US soil. The fact is terrorists hate us for our terrorist repellant cats.