The Next Challenge: Locking in Democratic Gains on National Security
Many factors contributed to the Democrats' victories on Tuesday. Revulsion against Republican congressional corruption. Middle class revolt against a country club pattern of economic growth. But nothing played a more powerful role than the rejection of the Bush and Republican national security priorities. One of the biggest challenges the Democratic party now faces is to exploit the opening that rejection creates.
Three years ago, according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner polling at the time for Democracy Corps, voters favored Republicans by 29 points on the question of which party would do a better job on national security. Last night, according to exit polls, Americans who said terrorism was an "extremely important" reason for their vote cast their ballots in favor of the Republicans by only a narrow 53-46 percent margin. By contrast, those who viewed Iraq as extremely important voted in favor of the Democrats by a lopsided 60-38 percent majority.
All this means that the Republican advantage on national security, which they have held ever since the aftermath of Vietnam, is now all but neutralized, at least that was the case up through last night. It is hard to overstate the transformation we could see in national politics if Democrats can lock in that change going forward. It would mean, for example, that the Republicans' presidential nominee in 2008 would not automatically be able to count on a big edge on national security in order to offset public preferences for the Democrats on economic fairness for the middle class.
Congressman Rahm Emmanuel of Illinois, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, deserves credit for recruiting so many veterans for House races this year. That move alone played a big role in last night's victories. These "fighting Dems," did not all win. But several did, like retired Admiral Joe Sestak, who unseated Republican incumbent Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district, or Tim Walz who defeated Rep. Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota's 1st congressional district And even ones who fell short last night, like Tammy Duckworth - the double-amputee Iraq vet competing for the 6th district in Illinois - still put many Republican seats into play that otherwise likely would have been safe for the GOP.
But Democrats will need to do more going forward than just recruit veterans. Now the challenge is to convince voters that there are strong policy reasons to vote for Democrats on national security - not just against George W. Bush on Iraq.
Iraq will be continue to be a big part of that story, although perhaps not in the way many in the media are telling it. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats will push the President to exit Iraq. But easily as much pressure for Bush to change direction on the war is likely to come from Republicans, who learned last night what a high political price they are paying for Bush's mishandling of the conflict. After all, it was Republicans as much as Democrats who pushed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out the door today. Now Republicans will be eager to ensure that voters are not still seething over the U.S. being bogged down in Iraq come November of 2008.
Democrats will unquestionably bring increased oversight over the conduct of the war - just about the only thing congressional Republicans failed to give the White House - but they will need to avoid the temptation to focus disproportionately on past decisions, such as what the White House knew about Iraqi WMD and when. They also need to show they offer a better way to fight terrorism. House Democrats have made a good start with the "Real Security" plan they framed heading into this election. Now, they need to push elements of that plan through the legislative process, including steps to cut American energy dependence, rebuild our overstretched military, and allocate homeland security funds on the basis of risk rather than politics, as the GOP had done.
This is a fluid moment in the electorate's thinking about security. Many Americans are reassessing which party really offers a solid path for protecting the country, and has the competence to carry it out. Last night they voiced their doubts about the Republicans. The next two years will determine whether they see a better alternative in the Democrats.
J. McCutchen
Joe Biden wants to kill the Gates Nomination, according to Chris Mathews
That's Poppy's Clean Up Crew!
Damn the Marmots have risen!
Holy S&$% I underbid -
I bid 7NT!!!!!
Time to read the Transcript Dems.
Lt. Gen William Odom
McLaughlin One on One
November 9, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like JR's phrase, to "exploit the opening that rejection creates." This is certainly not an easy slam dunk. Will involve lots of work. It almost certainly involves a lot of listening (or relistening) to what our fellow citizens say they want in a foreign policy strategy that addresses their interests and concerns. That is, build it from the bottom up, starting with the concerns of ordinary citizens, through an ongoing conversation, rather than dropping a strategy from above.
I wonder how we cd figure out how the average political leader -- say a congressperson or senator - actually gets his or her ideas on national security? I wonder if the blogger has some ideas on that?
November 9, 2006 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have Bolton and Gates mixed up, although I'm not sure how that could be.
"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06
November 9, 2006 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
On foreign policy, the Dems ought to be talking about pragmatism & cooperation with our allies in order to advance international solutions to international problems. The US, the Dems should say, needs to be the strong guy who understands the limits of his strength & the need to be smart as well as strong. Stupid, brute strength has its limbic attractions, but I sort of get the feeling that the majority of Americans are really tired of being stupid-strong.
November 9, 2006 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That must mean Joe Biden still wants to be president. (Though I think Gates ought to be blocked, too.)
Update: Seashell, I thought it was common knowledge that Bolton is dead meat. No way no how. Even Linc Chafee has come out against him. I'd love to see Gates get the same treatment, but you're probably right about Jexster's post.
November 9, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think at this point first principles are very important to work out and articulate. It seems to me that over the long run, the policies that yield the most peace are also the policies that yield the most security (and conversely). Easier said than done, and there are always short-run tradeoffs. But ultimately, the best strategy towards long-term peace and security is a pragmatic, empirical question.
I believe Democratic and progressive leaders are currently in a position to take the lead on this badly needed pragmatism. This isn't about being centrist and splitting the difference, it's about being smart and goal-oriented.
November 9, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can expect further erosion of our civil rights, further devaluation of the dollar, and no progress on the israel problem, the source of "terrorism". Screw the democrats, I think the only difference between them and republicans is their posture when licking the neocon's boots. They request the Neocons put them up on the chair first. Everyone thinks there has been a shift of power, I do not. These morally weak democrats will fall over themselves trying to out do Bush, and all of them swore to protect the constitution- their words mean nothing. This is a fascist government and the only reason no-one thinks so is because they don't know the definition. Bush is a coward, the democrats are cowards, and the corporations hold the power. Start dealing with reality.
November 9, 2006 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will there be ice cream and cookies at the focus group -- rum raisin maybe? Me and Walter -- that's Mr. Lippmann to you -- just love rum raisin!
November 9, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, the Democrats now have majorities in both Houses of Congress. You now wish to "exploit" the rejection of Bush's policies on Iraq to establish credentials on National Security.
Give us a concrete example.
When Abizaid and Casey put in a formal request for more troops in Iraq do you vote for or against it?
Seems to me there is absoloutely no way to avoid a split over that.
November 9, 2006 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 9, 2006 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeremy
You are misguided if you are of the persuasion that more Americans believe Democrats are stronger on national security than Republicans.
Tuesday's vote had virtually nothing to do with the Democrats. Indeed, it had everything to do with Republican failures. In a sense, the GOP shot themselves in the foot on this issue.
The Democrats now, for the first time in decades, have the opportunity to show the country just what they have to offer in terms of a national security plan. They must convince the American people that they can do the job. Essentially, they must win the debate that the GOP has dominated for the last 30 years.
Tuesday's vote did not accomplish that task. Voters simply said, "we're tired of the Republicans, let's see what the other party can do."
That is very different than the populace putting more trust in a thus far non-existent Democratic national security plan as you seem to be insinuating.
November 9, 2006 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have just been handed a windfall.
Now they don't have to solve the problem of withdrawal from Iraq. All they have to do is remind the voter that the Democrats are the party that controls both houses and say "It's their Iraq war now!"
Will the Democrats solve Iraq to the satisfaction of the American voter by 2008? If not, they'll share the blame.
November 9, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly are you looking for, Gettysburg? A pithy, 1-paragraph plan that solves all of Iraq, end of story? You're not gonna get it. from anyone. but many ideas have been floated from Democrats, on this site and in policy statements and speeches from Dem leaders. it's true that there's no single, comprehensive, concrete plan that the entire Dem party has rallied behind (nor from the GOP), but you have to appreciate that the Iraq quagmire is a pretty difficult situation, there's a variety of opinions across the board, and the best course of action will likely (or hopefully) come out of intense but honest debate, and perhaps insights from the Baker-Hamilton commission.
What we can at least expect at this point is an important change in attitude and approach. No more mindless chest pounding, no more stubborn refusal to acknowledge the situation. time to hold "the decider" accountable for his decisions and bring in fresh ideas. what are those ideas? stay tuned, but again, you're not likely gonna get it from an easy-to-digest statement that we can throw around with ease on blogs.
November 9, 2006 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some concrete steps:
1. Oppose Gates for SecDef. Insist on a SecDef with DOD experience.
2. Investigate & prosecute fraud, waste, and abuse by contractors in Iraq. Make sure the country knows in plain English what our vast debt has been buying for 3 years, and how money was diverted from projects that could have actually improved the lives of the people we supposedly liberated.
3. Prosecute terrorists in bona fide courts of law. Probably shouldn't start with KSL, since he's been tortured and therefore any evidence is tainted. Find OBL. Put him on trial.
4. ASAP, refocus on the Taliban. They sheltered the scum that attacked us, and Bushco gave 'em a walk.
5. Create port cargo screening and airport screening that works.
6. Tighten border security.
7. Make sure unsecured nuclear material is a top priority of DOE, and make sure the public knows it.
This is just a list of the top of my head, and I'm not a security professional.
November 9, 2006 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And tie each one of these legislative goals to a piece of legislation that Repugs have to vote against and Bush has to veto and Repugs have to vote to sustain his veto.
November 9, 2006 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Abizaid and Casey put in a formal request for more troops in Iraq do you vote for or against it?
Neither. There are not enough troops or available equipment to give to more troops.
Not only that, but National Security and Iraq are two different subjects requiring different solutions and policies.
Wrong assumption and wrong question.:-)
"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06
November 10, 2006 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
jr, I have not seen or heard one word that Biden intends to block the Gates confirmation. So I was trying to point out that he had Gates confused with Bolton, which is where Biden strongly stated, No Way Will Bolton get Confirmed.
"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06
November 10, 2006 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me an indepth definition of "national security" and how we achieve it.
November 10, 2006 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dems want to out-GOP the GOP on national security, they can go ahead and authorize an invasion of Grenada or go fight Daniel Ortega again. In fact, I can think up all manner of big-swinging dick plans to underline that the Dems are macho national security genuises.
But, boy, that wouldn't half miss the point.
Surely what the midterms have shown is that America realizes that the larger part of national security is not screwing up. The challenge - not a big one surely - is to make sure we don't get stuck in another pointless war.
The Iraq debacle will hang over the GOP for a generation. Even if not much changes over the next two years, the GOP will continue to be blamed for getting us into the mess in the first place.
The Democrats can work off the basis - for a while anyway - that they brought a GOP government back to reality. That's a great platform, and there's no need for the Dems to go out of their way to reinforce it.
There are undoubtedly some insufferable hawks who won't be happy unless America is beating up some tinpot dictatorship, but there's absolutely no need to reach out to these people. The majority of the country is just asking for some national security sanity these days, and more than anything that means an end to risky, unilateral foreign adventures.
Keep it simple. Don't over-reach. The GOP's punishment for Iraq - and the decimation of Reagan's legacy - is plenty good enough for the moment.
November 10, 2006 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I vote for it. Seems to me, we have to go in with overwhelming forces prior to withdrawing in order to bring about some type of calm. Once we leave chaos will probably resume. At least we will be able to say, we secured the peace, prior to pulling out our forces.
November 10, 2006 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be assuming that more troops will make Iraq safer, is that right? I'd question that. But really, the correct vote will depend on what the larger strategy is. "More troops" is not a plan.
November 10, 2006 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your party has been blaming Dems for WH failures since the beginning, so this isn't anything new. Apparently the voters assign blame differently.
How's that crow taste?
November 10, 2006 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'll assume that was a response to Gettysburg, not me
November 10, 2006 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent point. The best line for the Dems, and one Dr. Dean has always put forth on TV is that Dems need to withdraw in a way that doesn't make things worse. A big final push to restore some security and possible economic functioning - and one that definitely brings in UN peacekeepers, as they will be needed for some time - is a great way to show both our nation and the world our commitment to finishing the job as best we can.
To do so will require making some hard decisions up front, like getting out of most of the country and focusing on securing a few key cities, and even really a few key neighborhoods. Finish a few hospitals, sewer systems, and schools, turn them over to the Iraqis and get the hell out.
November 10, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The failure to put enough troops into Iraq in the first place and to plan for the post Saddem period may have doomed the Iraq War to failure within the first two weeks. Other than trying to organize a regional conference in which the United States tells the Iranians, the Syrian and the Saudia that the mess we have made is not going to effect us nearly as much as it will them it is hard to see what practical alternatives there are. However, many of the Generals who wanted Rumsfeld out do seem to believe there are ways of improving things in Iraq.
Outside of Iraq, Democrats need to sell the American people on a global approach to the worlds problems. This not mean running ot the U.N. It can include NATO, the World Bank and other, even new institutions. Dealing with everything from Al Qaeda, other problems arising from the Middel East, trade, the growth of China, India and other fromer Third World countries, and many other issues need to be tackled by many countries if led by the United States. This was largely the Clinton approach but also Bush 41s as well.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 10, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that the more troops plan leads us straight towards Johnson-style escalation and quagmire. I need grater assurances that more troops would effectvely pacify Iraq before committing them.
November 10, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. In contrast to America's recent experience, simply becoming the party of good governance will keep the Democratic party in the majority for a generation. Good governance means impeccable ethics standards, accountability but not vengeance, transparency, fairness, reform, and reaching to the middle via compromise.
Bush had a historic opportunity following 9-11 and Katrina and he blew it by pursuing a grimly tactical electoral strategy. It took a while for the electorate to catch on, but American voters handed Republicans their asses. Lets not follow the Republican example.
November 10, 2006 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It appears to be a reply to "Kiwi von Huber".
I personally doubt that the public will suddenly hold the Dems responsible for Bush's war. The title "Commander in Chief", after all, is held by the President.
November 10, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did the question of how many troops should be sent to Iraq become a question for Congress, as opposed to the Commander in Chief? Did I somehow miss a constitutional amendment?
November 10, 2006 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no reason to think that a stepped-up US commitment will produce any better outcome. All the US presence has accomplished in Iraq is to serve as a target and provocation for violence, and to sow war in a place where there was no war previously. There is every reason to think that more troops and a stepped-up military involvement will only produce a stepped-up resistance.
There has been a lot of this sort of thinking floating around since the election. Frankly I think it is crazy talk. It seems that a lot of formerly clear-eyed Democrats, now with a taste of power in their mouths, are allowing themselves to be seduced by the ultimate temptation: winning the war. In their fear that they will ultimately be blamed for defeat and withdrawal, they may now begin to hope against their better judgment that they can launch a Hail Mary pass that will pull off a decisive come-from-behind triumph.
This is the same sort of "peace with honor" desperation that lead to the Vietnam war being extended by half a dozen years, and produced tens of thousands of additional American casualties. And yet Saigon still fell in the end. Stepping up the US troop commitment only means that that we become more and more deeply invested in the project, and that it becomes harder and harder to detach ourselves from a futile and life-wasting endeavor. I urge Democrats to resist the temptation to kill even more American soldiers in Iraq.
It is time to begin the process of withdrawing from Iraq in stages. Let's accept, like grownups, the need to get out and cut our losses. And if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.
November 10, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Kiwi. You guys started this war and you lost it. All that remains for the Democrats is to cut the losses, and to prevent more needless casualties. First we're going to have a series of hearings to parade military experts before the country to convince the public that the war aims are now unachievable, and that it is time to disengage. Then we are going to have more hearings to convince the public that (a) the war was a bad idea to begin with, (b) that it was incompetently waged once begun, and (c) that it has weakened us around the world. We will also make clear that one of the chief reasons the war received initial congressional support is that the congress was badly misinformed by a combination of Bush administration lies and intelligence failures.
November 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But in these cases / We still have judgment here
November 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is of course too late for a large troop presence to be a help instead of a provocation. That time was at the start.
Seems to me we will be cutting a deal with the factions, informing them, through the Iraqi police (thoroughly infiltrated), that we will stand down and stop patrols. In return we will ask for an exit without being shot at.
This was accomplished in Vietnam; the debacle at the end was because we were maintaining a substantial "assistance" presence, but mainly depending on the ARVN for facility protection. The current situation may require abandoning the palatial US embassy.
November 10, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has been noticeable to me that the very basis of both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq has never been questioned by this blog or Josh's blog for that matter. Why isn't the whole official version of 9/11 coming under scrutiny when there is so much evidence pointing to it being an inside job? When a physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, Steven Jones, who has voted straight Republican his whole life, comes out and says those towers came down with thermite (explosive material), why doesn't this blog take notice?
If we can bring out of the woodwork a few more people to show that it was an inside job, Americans left, right and center would cry for both impeachment and a criminal trial. Then the Dems wouldn't have to tiptoe around anymore. This event is the basis for every lousy trick the administration pulled and it is the whole raison d'etre for pulling all our freedoms and degrading out Constitution. Come on guys show some spine.
November 10, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Bush's response in 2004 was "we shouldn't let other countries determine our policy", a pretty typical hawkish argument. But I think this is the way to think and talk about it: smart diplomacy and international efforts are about getting results, improving our long-term security. This isn't about singing kumbaya, its about making progress.
November 10, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When Abizaid and Casey put in a formal request for more troops in Iraq do you vote for or against it?"
Seems to me that you drag Abizaid, Casey and Gates up before Senate and House committees and you ask them some very tough questions before the TV cameras. And maybe some of it has to be in closed door executive session but Bush will feel the pressure. Abazaid and Casey are not ideologues and undoubtedly want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Democrats don't need to get jerked around like they did as the minority party. They can jerk the Republicans around and make the guy in the White House feel it.
November 10, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Sweet Ellen...ever the elitist, ever the cynic.
November 10, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 7 responses so far to my previous comment in this topic seem to be evidence in support of my theory that Democrats would split over a request for more troops.
Since US armed forces have already been overstretched, such a request would obviously require substantial Congressional appropriations for expansion (including sufficiently increased incentives for recruitment).
The various responders presented arguments as to why it shouldn't or couldn't happen or why it would be a good idea as a preliminary to withdrawal (plus one from Ellen which I did not understand).
Nobody so far has offered an argument that it would not result in a split.
Any takers?
Is anybody prepared to argue that with a formal request for more troops from Abizaid and Casey, the Democrat response in voting on appropriations will not be thoroughly split and will somehow help with "Locking in Democrat Gains on National Security"?
November 10, 2006 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A request for troops would presumably entail a strategy, or at least a specified task. We are in a position where the top brass can't decide, for us, what to do next.
All war has a political goal if it is not purely defensive (and often then, too). Washington's elected officials will have to decide what to do, then the brass can ask for the wherewithal.
So I don't expect this question to arise in the pure form you offer.
November 10, 2006 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it won't arise in a pure form. But the associated strategic direction should be kept as a separate discussion to focus clearly on the likelihood that a vote for the increased appropriations to support the larger armed forces that can maintain more troops in Iraq will arise in a pure form.
A pure form in which each member of Congress has to vote yea or nay on a specific appropriation and accept responsibility for the consequences.
Not in a form where the issue can be fudged by blaming Rumsfeld for not having sent more in the first place and provided them with better equipment etc, but in a form where the theatre command, CENTCOM command, SECDEF and Commander in Chief state the armed forces are overstretched with long term effects on recruitment, that additional forces are required now and that without them there will be significant increases in casualties and/or catstrophic defeat.
Nancy Pelosi has committed in advance not to block appropriations for the war and Howard Dean has committed in advance not to impose a timetable.
Will those commitments hold under those circumstances or would a significant section split?
November 11, 2006 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly do expect a possibly loud and perhaps even angry discussion of any fund for fighting equipment and for more troops both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. After all, as we've all known and talked about for months (years), as Democrats and thinking Republicans we vary greatly in our beliefs. What doesn't vary are our core beliefs that troops in battle deserve the very best we can give them; and that means both equipment and enough troops to carry out what needs to be done as we slowly withdraw our troops. I've not heard a single newly elected Congressperson indicate anything so cruel as Rummy's, "You go to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you wish you have." (Possibly a slight misquote here)
The most important gift we can give our men and women in our fighting theaters is the knowledge that we will support them!
Bush has said repeatedly in the past few days that those troops will not come home until "victory" has been won. I'm having a complete memory lapse here: is there a Constitutional way to override this neocon view he still believes in? I've been so sad as I've seen him quoted with this phrase. If he hangs on to his view that no one voted to leave before the job is done, what can Congress do? Other than impeachment, I mean, which I firmly believe would rip our country completely asunder.
November 11, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best wishes and God's blessings to the Democrat House and Senate. They won it fair and square.
Nonetheless, try to resist disparaging the soldiers and sailors during the withdrawal of troops frim Iraq. Don't let them know you believe they fought and died in vain.
Thanks...
November 12, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one has yet disparaged any soldiers and no one will. That has been done by their employers not adequately supporting them ("the army you have") and low-level soldiers have already taken the fall for being encouraged to "take the gloves off".
These and other reasons are why there is new management.
November 12, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your committment to not disparage the troops.
My son and those in his command did not appreciate Senator Durbin's comparing them to "Nazis" and Senator Kerry suggesting they "terrorized" the Iraqi people.
I don't agree with Bush's approach to warfare either, but demonizing the mission discourages the troops and emboldens their enemies.
The terrorists are as thrilled as you that the Democrats took control and are repudiating America's Commander in Chief.
I know the Democrats are proceeding in good faith, but it looks to the world that the United States doesn't have the guts to take casualities and fight.
That image guarantees another 9-11.
Nobody's fault. It just does.
November 12, 2006 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Durbin and Kerry were attempting to protect the reputations of our soldiers.
It is understood that it was not your son that chose the anti-insurgent policies. It is him, however, that is the instrument. If a policy is leading to resentment by Iraqis, or if interrogation practices are making new enemies of accidental captures, looking away doesn't help your son.
What matters is what the people sharing the street with your son think. If they know of bad stuff, your son is at risk. If the bad stuff stops, your son is safer.
As to the tired Democrats-won't-fight and we-will-get-hit argument, shall we consider that Hezbollah attacked under Reagan, Al Qaeda attacked under Clinton with a Republican Congress, and 9/11 was under a Republican government? Where is the correlation of Democratic administration and terror attacks? Only in your imagination.
And the greatest criminal on Earth is free, somewhere in Waziristan. How's that war on terror going? The voters feel it isn't going anywhere.
November 12, 2006 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps your hatred for Bush blinds you to reality as my love and admiration for my son does me.
The Princeton swim coach flew to our house in California to personally recruit our son but he chose to serve his country and enrolled in the Naval Academy.
Most of his peers have similar athletic and academic histories and they don't appreciate their own U S Senators demonizing them.
We both know Durbin and Kerry have no interest in helping our son and his brothers in arms but rather furthering political careers.
November 13, 2006 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which reality am I blind to? I'm aware that all politicans have political ambitions, that is pretty much by definition. I'm aware that the administration would also not be immune to political ambition, or habits. So that is a wash. We do not "both know" that Durbin and Kerry have no interest in helping soldiers. Which is a more likely advocate for the troops, the one who served, Kerry, or the one who did not, Bush?
The question is who does, or will, make best use of government's power. How does it help our son to allow security contractors in Iraq to be outside of the law? Does it help your son to send him to Iraq when the main threat to the country came fom Afghanistan? Does it help your son when his superior officers are threatened with firing for even mentioning post-invasion planning? Does it help your son for him to know independent security contractors are making many times the income he is?
Your son has been poorly served by those in power. Covering up excessive force or brutal detainment practices does not help your son. The people that threaten him already know about those things.
I don't hate Bush, I am embarrassed by him, disappointed by him, shocked by him, and feel he lacks understanding that would allow him to make informed decisions.
November 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink