They're Lovin' It!
This is as frightening as anything I"ve read in the last two weeks. From a Newsweek report by Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey:
Judging by the twin speeches of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday, the big theme of the 2006 elections is the same as it was in 2002 and 2004. It's the war, stupid.... According to the veep, speaking to the conservative Heritage Foundation, it's essentially the same debate whether you're talking about the elections in Iraq or the NSA eavesdropping program. You're either with the administration or a naive fool who helps the terrorists. Or, as Cheney put it more elegantly, "Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not. And as long as George W. Bush is president of the United States, we are serious-and this nation will not let down its guard."
....The debate over the NSA and the Patriot Act is one the White House wants to have.
Bush and Cheney have come out swinging-against ... those who say Bush doesn't have the legal authority to conduct domestic wiretaps without warrants and, above all, against their political opponents. For most of 2005, Bush was forced to defend himself on Iraq against a faceless but deadly enemy: the insurgents. Now, in early 2006, he is reverting to his faithful strategy of painting Democrats as weak on defense and national security.
....When one reporter asked if the Patriot Act vote reflected his loss of power and public support, Bush's face brightened and he flashed a smile. "If people want to play politics with the Patriot Act," he warned, before catching himself, "it's not in the best interests of the country." White House aides were actually looking forward to the Senate's six-month extension of the act because it pushed the debate closer to the midterm elections in November. (In the end, the House insisted on a one-month extension.)
What kind of world have we created when the President commits an explict violation of the Constitution and statutes, and yet finds that fact a comfortable distraction from his other mistakes??
They've read the polls and they know that some hideously large percentage of Americans when read the actual Constitution can't recognize it. What this calls for is a massive civic education campiagn, directed not just at the public, but at the media which often seems to know just as little.
January 5, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, a lot would be accomplished if we applied even more methodological rigour to international relations field-specifically to terrorism research efforts. By that I mean, far more expanded understanding of culture and language.
Now having said that, I also wonder if this will mean that people will be approaching others in a contrived manner, thereby leaving little room for sincere & natural progression in relationship building. The efforts have been jaundiced & awkward sometimes. For example, I would never have projected that any coffee clutch conversation was being used for purposes other than mere enjoyment. Then again, I am not the brightest bulb sometimes.
January 5, 2006 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have absolutely no accomplishments in domestic policy, except for the negative ones of Katrina and the biggest corruption scandal in decades. So they have to turn the focus onto foreign policy, where they can argue for a 'C' instead of an 'F.'
That said, as much as I loathe the administration's domestic policy, the Democrats still have yet to demonstrate they can handle foreign policy. Democrats have held the White House for only 8 of the last 25 years. I can't think of any impressive foreign policy successes Democrats can point to over that period. It was not Clinton's strong suit.
Thus, it is rational to doubt whether Democrats who propose a major shift in foreign policy really have the expertise to know what would be the outcome. Democrats need to propose cautious rather than radical shifts in our foreign policy in order not to scare off voters.
January 5, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, as much as I loathe the administration's domestic policy, the Democrats still have yet to demonstrate they can handle foreign policy. Democrats have held the White House for only 8 of the last 25 years. I can't think of any impressive foreign policy successes Democrats can point to over that period. It was not Clinton's strong suit.
By contrast, I assume you can think of many impressive foreign policy successes Republicans can point to since 1980. Please, enlighten us. Tell us how Republicans brokered a peace settlement in Northern Ireland, for example. Or, perhaps, how Republicans have led the efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. How about a discussion of Republican successes in keeping Lebanon peaceful? Heck, I would be happy just to hear about how the Republicans settled the Iraq problem without resorting to war. Or, how they used diplomacy to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait. The possibilities are endless, it seems. The floor is yours.
January 5, 2006 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secrecy and spying are powerful tools against terrorism. Secrecy and spying can also be used to bury screwups and avoid accountability. Think of how New Orleans may have been if the authorities had the power to cut off knowledge of the disaster, and how withholding such knowledge from the public leaves us open to future disasters.
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers provided for a way to balance the need to monitor terrorists with the need to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions: meaningful review by an independent branch of government. For domestic spying, this means requiring the executive branch to ask a judge for approval for their actions. The FISA court allows us to monitor terrorists within our borders while ensuring accountability for the executive branch. What does the President have to hide, anyway?
January 5, 2006 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secrecy and spying are powerful tools against terrorism.
No, they aren't. The important characteristic of terrorism that makes it different from armed military conflicts is that terrorism involves very few people, very loosely organized, if organized at all. Spying is a way of gathering odd bits of information from diverse sources, and using that to determine what the facts are about the whole picture. But, terrorism doesn't involve a "whole picture" and even if you learned all of the information available, it would just be odd bits of information, because that is all there ever is. And, no spy activity is 100% effective or 100% accurate, so spying is a very ineffective tactic against terrorism. Ordinary police work, on the other hand, is always used against very few people, loosely organized, if organized at all, so is the preferable tactic to use.
Founding Fathers provided for a way to balance the need to monitor terrorists with the need to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions: meaningful review by an independent branch of government.
Wrong again. The Constitution has nothing whatever to say about terrorism, let alone saying how to balance the need to monitor terrorists with the need to hold the executive branch accountable. FISA is a law passed very recently - the FIS Courts are an innovation of that law. The FIS Courts are of questionable constitutionality, but by limiting them to non-citizen activities, the courts are probably ok.
For domestic spying, this means requiring the executive branch to ask a judge for approval for their actions.
Wrong one more time. FISA applies only to spying on communications from or to other countries, not to domestic spying on US citizens. The Constitution prohibits warrantless searches of citizens, and no law can override the Constitution.
I am, as should be obvious, not a Constitutional lawyer, so the above represents my opinion and only my opinion. Using this opinion in defense of yourself in a court is not recommended.
January 5, 2006 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Once Bush is gone, U.S. foreign policy for the next decade will be dominated by undoing our inept and criminal acts dating from 2001. So, from a foreign policy standpoint, it really doesn't matter who's in the White House.
2. I recall sitting in the House chamber for one of Carter's SOTU addresses. One memorable line was something to the effect "we are at peace." I would submit the best foreign policy accomplishment Democrats have is that they haven't gotten us into any wars since 1980. IMHO, that should end the discussion.
APB
January 5, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, these issues are not really about the core matters, they are about increasing the power of the executive. To do that, they have to win a few set piece battles along the way, and as you observe, they have made their choices. Wiretapping and the Patriot Act. The question is whether a stratagy to oppose them that can win can be organized. Without a win, their power is diminished a few whigs, but if they fail then the project of enhancing the executive is in trouble. It is all about power, and we need to comprehend that.
January 5, 2006 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very fortunate indeed that we are getting so much practice with building democracy in Iraq because that will come in very handy when the time comes for Bush to exit the Whitehouse and we begin rebuilding our own democracy, that is, unless Jeb Bush isn’t elected in which case all bets are off.
If we take a broader view and look at the republican congress as well as Bush, taken all together, they will be leaving this country in a shambles. People now cannot trust congress nor can they trust the system because both have been compromised under republican leadership. Yes, some democrats are involved but all of this transpired under republican leadership both federal and congressional. I say that because in both federal and congressional branches we see a new kind of authoritarian leadership stemming from Bush and Cheney in the Whitehouse and DeLay in congress.
Long after Bush gallops off into the sunset Americans will be dealing with the left-overs from the rich mans table. We will still be pouring money into Iraq even if the troops are brought back home, we will have a legitimacy problem on the world stage, the quality of life has already diminished greatly for many under President Bush another way of saying the economy is still a dud.
I don’t know what kind of world Bush and the republican party has created but at the end of the day I wonder if we will be able to recognize ourselves.
January 6, 2006 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one, and only, tactic that this administration has used successfully is fear, and they're saddling up that pony one more time to augment their assertion that the president has unprecedented, unchecked powers during wartime. While those of us on the left tend towards outright boredom at this topic, the vast majority of the right remain deluded in the concept that Bush is our knight in shining armour. Bush and Cheney are once again pushing the concept that as long as we remain afraid, and trust our president to protect us, he will be the one to tuck us in at night and sing us a lullaby. Their message is quite simple - Bush must have dictatorial powers to keep us safe.
Fear works for these guys - expect it to be the primary theme in the next three years as Bush attempts to improve his legacy.
January 6, 2006 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bring 'Em On!
I'm ready for a war debate. This White House presided over failing to prevent 9/11, failing to capture Osama, and failing to secure Iraq with enought troops. A large enough occupation would have locked down all weapon stores and restored essential services rapidly. There would have been no insurgency.
This White House dumbly accepts addiction to oil as a given, with no way out, thus insuring a future of war over resources and a continuous "great sucking sound" of our money going down the drain.
January 6, 2006 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
As it stands, the wiretapping issue is not a winner for Dems. A large number of Americans, probably a majority, are openly hostile to demands of due process. If they are innocent, they have nothing to hide. Which is a legitimate position, honestly held, though one that is counter to American tradition.
Indefensible, however, is the sort of self-styled libertarian who nonetheless fails to denounce the wiretaps, as he knows that people of his ideology/affiliation and his (probable) ethnicity are almost certain never to be subjects of Bush's surveillance. Combine those two groups and you have an unassailable majority on any referendum on warrantless wiretapping. I'm only surprised that Mark is surprised at this.
That's how things stand now. Put a face on this issue--say, Christiane Amanpour--and it could change dramatically.
January 6, 2006 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I think of Clinton's foreign policy successes, I think of the Dayton peace accords for Bosnia, and the Kosovo campaign. I would count them both as successes, but they were messy successes, and nothing that the general public remembers with great affection.
The current peace is Northern Ireland is of great credit to Blair. I'm sure Clinton helped, but if he had a major role, I don't remember it, and I doubt the general public does either.
I give Clinton credit for trying to bring peace to the Mideast, but his efforts were not successful.
The last real foreign policy triumph under a Democratic president that I can think of was Jimmy Carter's brokering the Camp David accords. That was a long time ago.
Look, I am not trying to tear down the Democrats here. I'm trying to get you folks out of the echo chamber, and describe how the average non-partisan American sees it.
Democrats don't have an impressive record in foreign policy, so they need to offer the public reassurance that the changes they propose will be cautious.
By contrast, the average person, in looking at the Republicans, sees that the Cold War ended successfully during their rule, and that the 1991 Gulf War looked like a triumph. That's why the public gave Republicans the benefit of the doubt with regard to the Iraq War.
Now, public doubts have increased. But the loss of faith in Republican leadership does not restore faith in Democratic leadership. It leads to a "plague on both your houses" attitide. And that leads to voter apathy, staying home on election day, and the incumbents returning to office. That would be an ugly win for the GOP, but Karl Rove is always happy to win ugly.
January 6, 2006 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
APB,
Ask Milosevic if we were at war with anyone while a Democrat was president. Ask Wesley Clark.
January 6, 2006 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And is it not astonishing that, after the debacle of 2005, no major staff changes are being made. No "wise men" are being brought in. They are going with the team that has lost the plot, because to change would imply error and expose weakness.
January 6, 2006 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Democrats have not held office for all that much, as you point out, it is hard to expect them to have as long a list but what have the Republicans really accomplished?
More importantly, rather than contrasting Republican and Democratic foreign policy it might be wiser to contrast George W. Bush's foreign policy with every President since Franklin Roosevelt. American foreign policy has been very consistent for decades. The gola has been to forge alliances, create global institutions all designed to create stability and allow greater exchange of goods.
This President has combined a Hobbessian view of the world with a paranoid streak. We are now constantly at war alone. We turn our backs on allies and world institutions except when there is a political need to reach out to them.
A Democrat, almost anyone who will be nominated, will not not make everyone at the Cafe happy but they are likely to recognize that the United States cannot deal with Islamic militantism, the rise of China, various diseases in Africa alone. They will attempt to repair our global reputation so that the problems that increasing have a worldwide dimension will have an international solution.
January 6, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can be yearning for this debate all you want, but it's not a winning one for Democrats.
The basic trouble is that a majority of the Democrats are anti-war (and by this I mean anti-War not anti-war-in-Iraq), while a majority of the country is comfortable with violence against our enemies (however they may be defined), as long as it looks like a) we're winning and b) there's some plausible reason.
So if Democrats want to have a debate with Bush on their post-9/11 actions, the only way it will go well for them is to find someone who will say "Goddamnit George, you pussy! You haven't kicked nearly enough ass!" I don't think Zell Miller is going to be available, and more to the point, anyone who came out swinging in such a way on national security would be prompty be personna non grata on the left.
It seems to me that there's this belief among the democrats and anti-war liberals that if they can just show that Bush is a dumbass and he's been a crappy leader, that Americans will turn to the Democrats for salvation.
Don't get your hopes up. The country knows Bush's weaknesses, and his support is at best, fragile, but any attack from the left on how Bush has been to vigorous in the proscecution of the War on Terrorism bolsters what support he has. The trouble for anti-War folks (and by extension the dems) is that the majority of the country just doesn't support the peace position, no matter what arguments are made for it. That's probably heartbreaking for many, but it's just the way it is.
The only effective attack on Bush is from the right, or full support to take the issue off the table. If Hillary gets out of the primaries, this is exactly what you'll see, and it's because she's got a good sense of popular opinion. Americans may want clever leadership when it comes to domestic programs, but in foreign policy resolute leadership, no matter how wrong-headed, is going to be more popular than someone who seeks compromise. Win-win is good at home, but we don't want it sold abroad.
And in this time, foreign policy is a critical issue. There is no "getting it off the table" by ignorning it. Unless democrats have candidates that meet the "He would take us to war if necessary" threshold, they're not going have a hard time winning elections, particularly presidential ones. And politically, taking us to war unnecessarily is a smaller fault than not going to war when necessary.
Again, it may be incredibly depressing that erring on the side of "we should go to war" is the more popular position, but I think it's just the truth in American politics at the moment., and dems are going to need to work with this reality if they want to govern.
There's something noble about sanding by unpopular positions that one belives are right, but it's not going to win elections.
January 6, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big difference - the U.S. was part of a NATO operation. It wasn't a unilateral offensive, with the U.S. as a sole lone wolf occupying force.
The UN did not authorize the U.S. to perform enforcement of any resolution on Iraq. The "Coalition" is a rag-tag collection of state-sponsored mercenaries. Almost like a pick-up game at an inner city playground. Mongolian troops, ferchrissakes? And in case you hadn't noticed, they've pretty much left the war theater and gone home to enjoy the booty that they pillaged from Iraq.
January 6, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
[...]
By contrast, the average person, in looking at the Republicans, sees that the Cold War ended successfully during their rule,
Apparently 'the average person" ascribes happy events that occur during Republican rule to the wisdom and/or activity of the Republican government then in place; but assume that such happy events occurring under Democratic Rule would just have happened anyway.
It's an interesting thesis, but mine would be that you are describing not "the average person", but merely "the average Republican".(Note also - whatever the "average" person might think - the N. Ireland peace process was well under way years before Tony Blair was prime minister)
January 6, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
the U.S. [in Kosovo] was part of a NATO operation. It wasn't a unilateral offensive, with the U.S. as a sole lone wolf occupying force.
The UN did not authorize the U.S. to perform enforcement of any resolution on Iraq. Nor did they in Kosovo, of course.The salient difference to American voters between the two conflicts does of course not relate to the legality or the size/composition of the coalition, but to the American body count.If American soldiers had died in Kosovo in the same kind of quantities as they have done in Iraq you can be sure that such causus belli as the Racak massacre would have begun to receive the same scrutiny as the WMD claims in Iraq. The difference you can sell to voters is not that the Democrats never got the country into any recent wars; but that the wars they got into were handled with a great deal more competence and a very great deal less American blood.
January 6, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
<span class="Apple-style-span">TWandrews said: The basic trouble is that a majority of the Democrats are anti-war (and by this I mean anti-War not anti-war-in-Iraq), while a majority of the country is comfortable with violence against our enemies (however they may be defined), as long as it looks like a) we're winning and b) there's some plausible reason.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">When it's framed like that, I think you're right. And it's the framing, who gets to define and control the argument, that is the losing proposition for Democrats.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">How would it be a winner for the Democrats? Like this:</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">All of us (</span><span class="Apple-style-span">democrats, republicans, independents, apoliticals) want to live in a world of peace and prosperity. The difference between us is how to get there. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Republicans have told us that they can only get us to peace through war, open-ended, and using up all of our prosperity along the way. By "our prosperity," the money and opportunities of the ordinary people of the U.S. Republicans have safeguarded theirs' (and the richests' financial holdings) by having the poor and middle class pay for the war. And everything, actually. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Liberals can make a much better deal for Americans. Oh, the rich won't get as obscenely wealthy, but they will still make money and be able to bed at night without worrying that they'll be murdered while they sleep. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">And when I say "Liberals," I don't necessarily mean Democrats. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">There are very few Democrats in power who haven't been brainwashed by the "new world order, IMF and World Bank enslavement of resource-rich developing nations" doctrine. The average American has no idea what our government (both parties) has done to the people around the world in order to become as rich and developed as we have. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">The dark side of capitalism (unrestrained, unregulated, growth at any cost) is what has begat this terrorist blowback. What's been done overseas also gets done to the most vulnerable at home. Corporate greed and excesses, obscene CEO bonuses, raids on employees' pension funds, elimination of workers' health insurance, outsourcing of jobs, cutting corners on workers' safety, all for the profit of a privileged few. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">It's not a hard case to sell to the American voter. All it takes is somebody to point our heads in the right direction and narrate the truth of what's before our eyes.</span>
January 6, 2006 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference you can sell to voters is not that the Democrats never got the country into any recent wars; but that the wars they got into were handled with a great deal more competence and a very great deal less American blood.
There goes that very loose interpretation of the word "war" again. Just because the US Military is involved in an action does not mean there is a war going on. Our military was involved in Haiti - was that a war? How about Somalia? How about Lebanon? Even in Korea, where we certainly had a lot of military involved, lost a lot of good men, and killed a lot more Koreans and Chinese, our government did not ever call that a war. Back at that time, the meaning of "war" was understood.
In the former Yugoslavia we did not commit ground troops, we did not attempt to occupy a country, we did not attempt to force a government of our choice on the citizens, we did not seek a "victory". That involvement differed from Haiti only in the magnitude of our involvement. There was a civilian slaughter taking place, we tried to stop it. No war.
January 6, 2006 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could quibble all day pointlessly about the "true" definition of war. (I could certainly point out a few other salient differences between Haiti and Kosovo, but again little would be accomplished in the process)
Back at that time, the meaning of "war" was understood.
My point was about what can be sold to American voters - and that you couldn't sell to them the idea that a Democrat had not recently taken them to war.
Since you fully acknowledge that "in this time" the meaning of war is different from the definition you yourself use then the key question is not about whether Kosovo really was a war. But whether America thinks Kosovo was a war.
Your position is akin to arguing that "gay" means happy and not homosexual. You may be perfectly correct to do so, but if George Bush appears on TV tonight and announces himself to be gay, the impression America will get is not that he is pleased about something.
January 6, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the key question is not about whether Kosovo really was a war.
January 6, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where we've gone wrong is surrendering foreign policy to the marriage of neocon utopianism and the cynical defense contractors who profit from it.
It is high time for a new foreign policy. It is not 1945 anymore.
Who will have the courage to reject a "leadership" role looking more and more like incompetent imperialism to the rest of the world and define a policy that we can afford and the world can respect?
January 6, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly anyone is anti-WAR, the question is what's an enemy and is war the best tactic. Many Democrats applauded bombing Serbia. Few Democrats were bothered by kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.
It is unfair to characterize a general preference for avoiding war as anti-war. It implies war is just another policy position, kind of like the death penalty is just a harder version of life. This nuance isn't hard to get across but it does crumble easily when the anti-war label is trotted out.
So it's perhaps a matter of tactics, using a different phrase, but Democrats are not afraid to use the military when it is needed. It's that word "needed" that is the issue.
There is an asymmetry in these arguments. The war-avoidance effort requires one to suppress an instinctive reaction, that of simply going out and kicking some ass. The war-eagerness version triggers that instinctive response, so the latter gets a boost from non-thought emotion and the former has to fight past the emotion.
This doesn't mean the arguments can't be compared but TV coverage will inevitably provide support for war more easily than the cautious discussion of alternatives.
That is why I say we talk about results. Those would be: no justice, since Osama got away; continued terrorism in Europe and the Mideast; an excruciating loss of respect by not finding WMD, and something like 100,000 dead people for an as-yet unproven theory of Mideast transformation.
Combine the foreign-policy disaster with glaring incompetence at home: unsupported military and veterans; FEMA's shame; essentially zero prosecutions of terrorists; struggling economy, in that the stock market is barely back to 2000's index; hopeless head-in-the-sand attitude towards energy and climate; it's a slam-dunk!
January 7, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink