Dems don’t know how to talk terror
Tweet
Does anybody on the Democratic side know how to talk about terrorism and the Republican role in allowing it to happen? Unlike 2002 and 2004, they’re adressing the issue but they’ve spent way too much of the last couple days caterwauling about Bush or Boehner being meanies. Where does that get us? Everytime an individual Democrat ore the left as a whole is smeared (usually by a chicken like Bush who doesn’t have the balls to ever call anyone out by name) they should respond with some sort of story – and there’s a vast supply of them – of conservative malfeaseance in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. The verifiable fact that quite simply more Americans have died via terror under this Republican president than any other president in the 230 year history of our nation is something that should be mentioned often and loudly.
These things aren’t radical, to me they are as obvious as breathing air. But increasingly I find progressives and democrats simply confused and bewildered about how the political world operates. For gods sake there was a recent discussion on MyDD about how negative advertising would backfire on Republicans. Days later I’m still amazed about how naïve and unserious people on my own side are. In the next few months I hope to address this issue head-on, as I think this conventional wisdom has taken strong hold. We’ll keep losing elections until that turns around.
35 Responses to “Dems don’t know how to talk terror”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Answer: General Wesley Clark.
Just let me know where I need to claim my prize Oliver.
Sadly Gen. Clark’s comments – dead on though they may be – won’t count for much this fall as they will next fall when he likely throws his hat into the ’08 cavalcade. It’s much more important that Dean, Pelosi, Reid, other senior Dems get their **it in gear.
Oliver,
I agree. I understand that Clark is not established in the upper eschelons of the Democratic party and that Reid, Pelosi, and Dean really need to take charge of this issue. My fear is not so much with Dean as it is with Reid and Pelosi. These two clowns refuse to even try changing the debate because they want to play by Republicans rules. Clark may not have the name or sway that these other Dems do, but when someone in the party carves out a plan, new direction or frames the debate, Dems have to work in unity to these people or ideas. After Republicans destroying everything they touch, all Democrats need is to stand up. Its not like people are raving about Republican rule and being mealy mouthed hasn’t won them a thing.
The verifiable fact that quite simply more Americans have died via terror under this Republican president than any other president in the 230 year history of our nation is something that should be mentioned often and loudly.
The reason why they don’t repeat it is because most Americans aren’t as stupid as you think they are (or would like them to be). Only truly stupid people would rush to the polls to vote Democrat based on such infantile blather.
Americans know about all the mistakes made by the Clinton administration. They did not take terrorism seriously enough (neither did the Bush administration), and it left us open to the attacks of 9/11.
The problem with your attack regarding malfeasance is that all they have to do is point to the complete lack of attacks since 9/11. And no, casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan where are brave troops are fighting are not victims of terrorist attacks no matter how much you want to paint it that way.
Well, Mr Willis, your time has come. You need to write a serious article on how you believe that the Democrats in leadership should handle the war against Islamic fascism — which most thinking people understand this to be.
Don’t tell us what you would not do, tell us what you would do that stands a reasonable chance of actually being effective and can’t be immediately hammered by people like me as just another way to say, “I surrender.”
It isn’t enough to say we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, because we are already there, and the invasion cannot be undone. Now you have to figure out what you are going to do about fighting the Islamists, in Iraq and elsewhere. It isn’t enough to say that President Bush hasn’t gotten Osama bin Laden; he is still on the loose, and you have to say, practically and realistically, what you would do about that.
“…can’t be immediately hammered by people like me as just another way to say, “I surrender”"
Who gives a damn about people like you? You’ve been wrong on everything since you people took over.
“The problem with your attack regarding malfeasance is that all they have to do is point to the complete lack of attacks since 9/11.”
Really? No terrorist attacks since 9-11? You must, of course, be talking about attacks on US soil because I’m sure the residents of London and Madrid would disagree.
So how true is this statement?
There were multiple anthrax letter attacks in the months after 9-11 but I can see why you wouldn’t include them in the “Islmaic terrorism” category because we don’t yet know who sent them or why. (And don’t get Dugger started on the dozens of eco-terrorist attacks there have been. Sheesh that guy.)
So aside from the anthrax letters and 9-11 itself there are two other incidents that fall under the Middle East related terrorist attacks category:
These two attacks left 3 dead total.
During the Clinton years, aside from the first WTC bombing, there were three Middle East related shootings:
The total number of deaths: 4
In addition to these attacks there were eight letter bombs (undetonated)(five mailed from from Egypt to the offices of a Saudi Arabian newspaper in DC and NY and three to Leavenworth), one pipe bomb (undetonated) planted by a Jew at a Synagogue “to disrupt the speech of former Israeli PM (Peres).”
No one died in any of these failed attempts.
So when you put it all together (aside from the Oklahoma City bombing) the amount of domestic Islamic terror in the US under Clinton was pretty much the same as under Bush. They both presided over an attack on the WTC and a series of low level, low casualty attacks mostly perpetrated by individuals. The only real difference between the two records is the magnitude of 9-11.
After the first WTC Clinton did not invade Iraq andhad basically the same record of domestic casualties as Bush. So tell me why were supposed to assume that Bush’s policies are so effective while Clinton was a failure? And if you count number of domestic US casualties related to Middle East terror, about 10 people died on Clinton’s watch. Do I have to remind you how many died on 9-11 alone?
Source: http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
What complete lack of attacks since 9/11? Places other than America count as well, you know.
Cough*anthrax attacks*coughcough
factcheck writes:
In case you hadn’t noticed, Mr Check, people like me vote. Our esteemed host understands that, even if you don’t.
And people like you aren’t worth the tradeoff. We would lose more voters catering to extreme views of the likes of you than we would gain. While at the same time betraying the principles of our party, and America.
No, keep voting for Republicans. We don’t want your vote.
Unreality wrote:
And this had been effective for you how? In case you hadn’t noticed, y’all are on the outside looking in.
Dana | Sep 15, 2006 8:18:48 AM
” …y’all are on the outside looking in.:
Not unlike wondering why you’re not on OW’s blogroll or suggesting ‘out loud’ that OW could have chosen you to be a guest blogger while he was on holiday. Neither have happened. Are y’all on the outside looking in?
We’re unwilling to give up our liberal principles to gain the far right part of the Republican party who will never vote for us anyway. It’s a tiny number of loons anyway, we can win without you.
Just like Oliver won’t give his blog to someone from the farthest fringe of political thought.
Dana, you people say we have no principles, then you criticize us for failing to sell out our principles to gain your vote.
Which is it?
We should not leave out the 2 seperate instances of someone driving their SUV’s into crowds of people. don’t remember the specifics. One was just a couple of weeks ago in SF. Terrorist attack or road rage?
“Terrorist attack or road rage?”
That’s an interesting point. If you listen to idiots like Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt that incident was a terrorist attack but then they turn right around and proclaim Bush victorious, just like our moron friends Jay and Dugger, because there have been no attacks since 9-11.
It’s more of the same ‘we’re safe but be very afraid’ bullshit that passes as “serious” thinking about terror on the right. What the right has been reduced to are distortions, lies and bed wetting paranoia.
How about the Montreal shooting the other day? Terrorist attack? How about the various postal shootings through the years? Columbine?
To the right, only an attack with A-rabs is a terror attack. That’s why they always forget the Olympic Park bomber or Timothy McVeigh. They’re not terrorists because they’re white.
So you have to wonder, is this a war on terror- or a war on Arabs/Muslims?
And who could forget the very dangerous (and very white) Unabomber. Another terrorist apprehended by the Clinton administration.
S thinks he can hurt my feelings:
One would have thought that you’d have understood humor. I did mention that our host wouldn’t recognize the place when he got back were he to have made me his guest host!
As for trolling for blogroll listings, sure, I’m shameless!
However, noting that y’all are on the outside looking in is (and one would also have thought you’d have understood this) a reference to the fact that Republicans control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Our esteemed host certainly recognizes that; that’s why he’s trying to find ways to get more votes for the Democrats!
Mr Check writes:
Actually, I’ve never accused y’all of having no principles; I’ve just said that you don’t have the right ones.
THis thread was started by our vacationing host, wondering how the party he prefers can address national security issues in a way which will appeal to the voters. I suggested that this would be a good time for him to tell us how the Democrats can do so.
THis was the real objection the Democrats had to the movie The Path to 9/11. It wasn’t that dramatic license was taken, but that the movie presented the fact that the general policy of the Clinton Administration (and the pre-September 11th Bush Administration) on counter-terrorism was a hide-bound law enforcement methodology which might be great for solving crimes after they happen, but lousy at preventing terrorist attacks before they can happen.
The left has been complaining about the Bush Administration policies since September 11th, making objections which are all pretty much things that boil down to law enforcement based mentality: were the proper warrants obtained, were young Arab males unfairly targeted (“profiled”) in looking for terrorists, and shouldn’t the detainees in Guantanamo be given lawyers and triels in civilian courts. That kind of stuff was depicted in the movie as having failed, which is exactly what it did. The Democrats didn’t like the movie because it demonstrates that their objections to the Bush policies are all based on a failed policy.
Mr Willis said that y’all needed to be able to address national security concerns in a way that the voters will both understand and support. THat tells me that our honorable host understands that we are fighting a war against the Islamic fascists, and that Democrats must address their concerns based on fighting a war, not on whether every i and j was dotted on every scrap of legal paper.
Dana,
We’re currently spending close to 1 billion dollars a week in Iraq.
What if we spent a billion dollars toward improving our human intellience capabilities such as hiring and training Arab speaking intelligence officers, translators and informants?
What if, in conjunction with out improved human intelligence capabilities, we spent several more billion dollars building and improving our special forces units and developing a serious counterinsurgency strategy for targeted ground operations?
How about if we spent another couple billion dollars improving our communication, training and operations with foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies such as
INTERPOL?
What if, in conjunction with our more targeted approach to discovering and rooting out terrorist cells, we added another, let’s say, ten billion dollars on foreign aid and democracy promotion programs in countries where terrorism breeds? What if we helped to build hospitals and schools in countries WITHOUT bombing the fuck out of them first? Think we’d get a better response from the locals?
Iraq is a large and bloddy distraction from all the things we should and could be doing to effectively fighting terrorists around the world. It is not only drawing resources away from proven methods of fighting terrorists — human intelligence, foreign aid, special forces and law enforcement — it is helping to radicalize a larger portion of the Muslim world thus added to number of potential and actual terrorists.
You attack a so-called a “hide-bound law enforcement methodology” but it was law enforcement that stopped the Millenium bombing plot, the recent London airline plot and more if you want to count Jose Padilla and those clowns recently arrested in Florida.
Yes, terrorists have been successful in London, Madrid and the US, if you accept the MIPT database’s definition of what a terrorist attack is (conveniently, an idiot like Dugger accepts it for the Clinton years but ignores it as definitive for the Bush years). Law enforcement could have done a better job in all of those incidents and one can look at those cases and discover ways of improving law enforcement efforts.
If you actually look at the record of domestic terrorist attacks Clinton and Bush share remarkably similar results with the exception of the sheer magnitude of 9-11. It is ludicrous to suggest that Clinton’s policies were a failure and Bush’s have been a resounding success. And for everyone who wants to blame 9-11 on Clinton I have on simple question: On what day does a President become responsible for what happens on his watch? Because if it isn’t Day 1 I’d love to know which day you think it is.
Well, Dana, the polls lately say that YOUR principles are wrong. America has seen you folks rule for 12 years, yet 5 years after the biggest attack on our soil, no OBL, no convictions, and a war that has at best been a distraction.
We don’t defeat fascism by becoming fascist. That’s what you don’t want to realize. And as for “fighting a war”, what sacrifices have YOU been asked to make? Where’s the draft? Why are taxes being cut during the war, with our deficit at an all time high?
Seems like you people need to get serious about national security.
As to some of your other points, it’s ludicrous to suggest that we need to surrender our principles to fight terrorism which is essentially what most of the right wing rhetroic on the war amounts to.
You sneer at the concepts of “evidence” and “rights” as if these bedrock principles have not seen this country through far greater threats and dangers than Islamic terror. Not one of you idiots has ever posited a believable scenario in which Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hezzbolah, Hamas or whatever pose an existential threat to the extistence of the United States. I hear alot of you morons wailing about Sharia law being imposed on Americans when Bin Laden sits in the White House. Tell me exactly how this scenario is even remotely possible?
And yet it is this paranoid, bed wetting scene that drives you guys to dispose of the foundational principles of law and justice that have made this country the beacon of freedom it is, or was, to most of the world.
“… what sacrifices have YOU been asked to make?”
I think that’s an important point and it has nothing to do with the chickenhawk argument.
We are being told now that we are in an existential fight against advesaries as dangerous or even more dangerous than Hitler and the Nazis. If that’s the case, why has the country not been mobilized in a commensurate way? There’s been no draft, no call for shared sacrifice, either economic or physical, no nothing.
Republicans want to run using war rhetoric but they don’t actually want to run on wartime policies, aside from grievously attacking the rule of law.
Frame thought he was arguing with me when he wrote:
But that’s actually what I was talking about. He is attem,pting to seriously engage in a debate as to how to fight the Islamic fascists, rather than just yelling that President Bush is wrong.
Nor do I say that it was all President Clinton’s fault; please notice that I said the law enforcement methodology was followed by the Clinton and pre-September 11th Bush Administrations.
Heck, I’m not trying to blame anyone at all. I think we ought to seek out and kill the terrorists, but it’s pretty clear that such an aggressive policy would not have been supported by the American people prior to September 11th, 2001.
What I am doing is attacking the idea that law enforcement methodol;ogy is the way to fight terrorism. Oh, it might have a few successes (and note that the things the Brits did would have been illegal under American jurisprudence), but this is a war, not crime-fighting.
Mr Check asks:
Because, unfortunately, we have not learned to cut our ridiculous social programs.
Yea, we shouldn’t feed poor school children and old people. F-poor people that are sick too. Doesn’t granny know there’s a war on?
That’s some clever dodging Dana but you haven’t provided any evidence that the invasion of Iraq has done anything to improve our situation vis a vis Islamic terrorism. I laid out a series of approaches in a serious strategy for combatting terrorists that you completely ignored. Why? I don’t know. It’s true that Bush has deemphasized and ignored these very strategies and labelled those who argue for them as weak-kneed appeasers. But what has his military approach accomplished? Bush’s plan is wrong because after billions of dollars, thousands of lives and a totallydestablized Middle East, the facts show that Bush’s post WTC attack record on terrorism is remarkably similar to Clinton’s.
There have been attacks on US soil since 9-11 according the definition laid out by the MIPT database, attacks in kind and frequency that are similar to the attacks that occurred after the first WTC bombing under Clinton. So tell me what empirical basis you have for arguing that law enforcement isn’t going to work? Hell, give me your empirical evidence that invading Iraq has had any impact on global terrorism.
Note, also, however, that I include the judicious and targeted use of special forces units as part and parcel of a multi-faceted approach to fighting terrorism. I do believe that targeted strikes and incursions are hell of a lot more effective than leveling whole countries. It tends not to radicalize the very populations we need to support us.
Q: Why are taxes being cut during the war, with our deficit at an all time high?
A: Because, unfortunately, we have not learned to cut our ridiculous social programs.
Is that an admission that you subscribe to “drown it in the bathtub” tax policy?
You know the real shame here is that while “Dems don’t know how to talk terror,” Republicans don’t know how to govern.
Let me try to put it another way, Dana. For return on effort, Bush’s approach to the war on terror scores an absolute ZERO. So you’re going to have to do more than just write, “this is a war, not crime-fighting.” You’re going to have to explain why this is a WAR DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHERS and not a global crime and diplomacy issue.
For less cost, less lives and less international chaos Clinton’s appraoch achieved the same results as Bush with the sole exception, again, of the magnitude of 9-11 which Bush should take full responsibility for. Why? Because he and his administration dropped the ball on the law enforcement front. They were far to focussed on WAR, namely the Cold War which was the only war his cabinet knew anything about. Missile Defense in 2001? Give me a fucking break. So while you’re demanding that liberals come up with a plan, you’re going to have to do a little better defending your solution which is, to date, a complete washout.
“The problem with your attack regarding malfeasance is that all they have to do is point to the complete lack of attacks since 9/11.”
If the “lack of attacks…” is the measure, then what about the years between OK City and 9/11?
If the lack of attacks between 9/11 and now is a credit for Bush, then shouldn’t those who use this metric also praise the Clinton administrations efforts as well?
sebastian, an environmentalist extremist group torched a SUV in 1998 so Clinton REALLY can’t be said to have an unbroken record for domestic terrorism.
On the other hand, since the largest attack in US history, and excepting the anthrax attacks and the LAX shooting and other minor incursions, Bush has an unblemished record.
Unless you want to count dead US soldiers, but they signed up so they don’t count. Understand?
Dana | Sep 15, 2006 1:45:10 PM
“One would have thought that you’d have understood humor.”
The air’s thin up there on your pedestal, Dana?
” … noting that y’all are on the outside looking in is (and one would also have thought you’d have understood this) a reference to the fact that Republicans control the White House and both Houses of Congress.”
One would have thought y’all’d understand you’re on the outside of OW’s blog … looking in.