Kevin- with all due respect, I'm a little underwhelmed for a few reasons:

1. There's still no larger narrative there- just lots of policies

2. Saying Iraq was a mistake doesn't tell us what TO DO NOW- this is no small matter- what's the Dem proposal- simply leave?

3. Yes, the GOP is overstating the case with Iran, but what do the Dems suggest if Iran doesn't respond to sanctions

4. How specifically will the Dems support democracy and human rights?

J.S.

http://voicesofreason.info

J.S.: Good questions. But consider this just an outline, not a white paper.

As for the larger narrative, that's the whole point. If we largely agree on policy (an open question), what's the best way to sell it to the public?

Pretty good Kevin I but if politics is about how societies deal with fear we are deeply screwed.

But anyway you done good.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, Kevin, and yes, this is a marketing issue. I especially like labeling the Republicans as "hysterical". That word strikes the perfect tone right now, in light of recent speeches by the Vulcans and Bush. Joe Six-Pack is finally starting to get the message that these people might be coming unhinged, and he will be receptive to that word because he does not have to identify himself with it. He knows HE is not hysterical, but some of the people he voted are certainly starting to appear that way. And dadgummit, it might just be time to give those darn Democrats another shot.

At this point, it strikes me that our problem is less about agreeing on policy than it is about agreeing on marketing.

Marketing? That means a media campaign for your cut and run strategy on the War on Islamofascism. This is EXACTLY what Bin Laden said he would do to get America to cut and run in the War on Islamofascism.

Link

"Bush: Secondly, along with his campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy."

"Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002."

"In it, bin Laden says that Al Qaida intends to launch, in his words, a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

"Bin Laden says that, by delivering these messages, Al Qaida aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."

"Bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent and lacking in patience and resolve, and they're wrong."

Liberals, being the useful idiots they are, are doing Bin Laden's media campaign for him. I hope you libs are proud of yourselves.

The Democrats will be attacked as appeasers / Commie lovers, unAmerican, gay-loving...(fill in the Rovian spin words) and it will appear in the papers because it will be 'news'. The extraordinarily hateful and mendacious will be done by the assistants while the more generic attacks will be executed by the president directly.

Only if the Democrats attack, attack, attack in a unified front can they win the news hole and get a more meaningful 'fact-check' to replace the 'balance' of the NYT, WaPo and AP.

I've vastly underimpressed.
Just two points of example in what sounds like a rehash of GOP propaganda.

The illegal domestic electronic surveillance of Americans is sure to light up so many false positives that circumventing privacy isn't even necessarily the worst part of it m: sumbitch won't hunt because it's too friggin' inefficient!

Going on point to specialize in counterinsurgency ! Lord love a duck. What do you think has caused all the insoluble problems ?

Al,

George W. Bush has done more to market and further Osama Bin Laden's agenda than Bin Laden ever hoped for in his wildest, most fantasy-fueled dreams. All due respect.

Democrats: Standing tall for Little Ideas!

Matt Yglesias had a fine article a year or so in TAP saying much the same thing -- for all the breast-beating about the lack of a liberal foreign policy vision (and hair-splitting about "enlightened nationalism" versus "progressive internationalism" versus whatever), everyone within shouting distance of the center-left has just about the same set of principles.

Regarding the marketing dilemma, here's the crux of it, from a post of mine in May of last year:

... the national-security choice for ordinary Americans in the post-September 11th era is... "Who's going to keep me from getting blown up by terrorists?" And that's the question Dubya makes sure to answer clearly (... "defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home").

Yes, it's bullshit, but at least he's answering the core question in a way that phrases like "liberal internationalism" never will.

So, my advice to my fellow Democrats is this: Stop trying to articulate a progressive foreign policy vision. Instead, tell Americans why Dubya's foreign policy is going to get them blown up, and what we need to do to prevent that.

Isn't that still what it comes down to?

Marketing-wise -- make energy policy and not the war on terror the center of the debate.

In the spirit of this post, playing a PR person, I still don't see americans supporting dems on issues of defense. Brooks made a good point on Jim Lehr the other week, to the effect of -- "Republicans may have made some mistakes but we're still the guys taking it to the enemy; we may get it wrong sometimes but you know in your heart of hearts that we're the guys you really trust on defense..." I think a lot of people really believe that.

Therefore, recast the debate --and isn't this what we really think? Iraq, terrorism, global-warming, high-gas prices, environmental collapse -- all are a function of the fact that this country is not taking either the sensible nor the extravagant steps needed to secure its future with a sustainable energy policy. This should be the center of debate, not 'terror'.

What do you think?

I would make a few changes to your input analysis.

There needs to be a de-emphasis of Democracy promotion (particularly by Military means) in the region. This has led to extreme instability in the short term. Democrats need to take a different tack on this and it will be difficult to promote this via "Talking Points", but it can be done with some thought.

I suggest reading this article by Flynt Leverett:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11859

and viewing his speeech on CPSAN today as well via The Washington Note.

A return to an updated "Realism" based Foreign Policy is a must. If the Democrats do not position themselves accordingly, even if they win power, it will be difficult to make sufficient changes in actual policy. This includes getting off the AIPAC bandwagon, since we saw where this has led in the recent Lebanon disaster. Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen in this respect.

A clear difference needs to be articulated vis-a-vis the BuschCo Doctrine and not just a "we can do it better" approach a la Kerry in '04.

Forceful, Strong, Direct but definitely a DIFFERENT policy.

I think we have a chance to kill two birds with one stone: we need to tie our opposition to the theocratic tendencies in the Republican party to our opposition to jihadism, Likudism, and other religious extremist movements internationally. Part of what makes US public diplomacy efforts so pathetic and bewildering right now is that we are attempting to persuade Arab and Muslim people that they should resist the siren song of those who claim to know what laws God wants them to obey, and instead to choose laws for themselves, but we ourselves are ruled by people who justify their actions by claiming to know what laws God wants us to obey. We won't win the war on terror unless we're credible in opposing religious extremism. The Democrats can have that credibility, the Republicans can't.

I think we need to learn from the early Cold War period, but not from Truman or Kennan (or at least not exclusively): we need to learn from the dramatic comeback the GOP made in the late 1940's on the issue of anti-communism. The GOP (and Nixon in particular) became masters at distinguishing between communists and fellow travelers, on the one hand, and patriotic and responsible trade unionists, on the other. They didn't attack the labor movement directly, but they successfully wedged the leadership and membership of most unions away from the radical activists and organizers who were the driving force behind growth. This successful wedge strategy, based largely by making it clear that there were patriotic, non-communist labor union members and leaders, and that the GOP knew and appreciated this and wasn't criticizing them, paid huge short and long term dividends. In the short term the GOP came back from the wilderness to win 7 out of 10 presidential elections between 1950 and 1990. In the long run, the labor movement stagnated until it was weak enough for aggressive businesses and conservative politicians to break it.

So, the marketing strategy I think we need to adopt would say that we're in a fight against religious extremism, not against religion. We ourselves are religious people, but we're not so proud and arrogant as the Bin Ladens and Dobsons so as to imagine that we and we alone know God's will. We believe that all people - here and around the world - should live by the laws they choose for themselves, not by the laws the extremists claim to know that God wants us to live by. And frankly, if we're going to win, we'll need religious people of all faiths to join us in the fight against extremists of all faiths, and we'll need to make sure everyone around the world knows that wherever you are, and whatever your faith, if stand up against extremism the United States will have your back.

I think that would be pretty good grand narrative, and one that the party as a whole could get behind, especially as it allows us to talk about religion in a way that we're pretty much all comfortable with, even those of us who profess no religion at all.

Two points:

1. I think the majority position, even within the Democratic ranks, regarding the NSA program isn't that it is an unnecessary curtailment of civil liberties in and of itself, but rather that the Bush approach of ignoring Congress and the Judiciary in implementing the program is an unnecessary curtailment of civil liberties and a blatent power grab by the Executive Branch in violation of the Constitution.

2. Any criticism of the Democrats for failing to say what should be done in Iraq is misguided for a couple of reasons. First, the Senate resolution that called for a redeployment of US forces within the region to allow the Iraqis to deal with their own probems, but with a US force nearby is one proposal. More importantly however, and the real crux of the problem Iraq poses, is that there are NO good solutions. That is the real crime of Bush's utter and complete incompetence. He has placed this country in a genuine no win situation.

Just staying the course, which, despite the PR blitz to the contrary, is essentially what Bush is doing, isn't working. Just think, in the last two years, there have been a couple of elections in Iraq, a Constitution has been adopted, and a couple hundred thousand Iraqi troops trained - and things are much worse than they were two years ago. It bears repeating: supposedly we will stand down when they stand up, yet even though the size of the American force has held steady and the number of Iraqi troops has gone from zero to almost 200.000, the violence has increased. It's mind-boggling.

Other alternatives don't sound too appetizing either. Our withdrawal could lead to a very bloody and very destablizing civil war. It could give the message we are cutting and running and the terrorists will proclaim victory. We really are screwed, and all because George Bush is utterly and completely unqualified to run a bingo game, let alone the United States.

I agree with Kevin. Democrats need to speak out and claim the serious national security approach they have agreed on. I'm so tired of pants-wetting Republicans continually trying to demean this great nation by goading it into a quivering, hysterical fear of terrorism.

The more the Democrats vacillate on Iraq, the more they appear to endorse Bush's stay the course strategy, which should more correctly be viewed as stay and die. If the Democrats, the supposed opposition party, cared one whit about those troops, they would actually start speaking out with one voice in making sure those troops were out of that meatgrinder as quickly and as rapidly as possible. But since they are practically quaking in their shoes that they will be accused of being soft on the war on terror, that prospect looks to be exceedingly slim.

"Domestically, we nearly all agree that we should spend more on things like port security and chemical plant security."

Are you actually naiive enough to believe that Democrats are actually serious about those issues? They use it as a way to attack Republicans, nothing more. When in power, they will do nothing in that regard. You are confusing talking points with conviction.

(The other points of agreement you mention are, in varying degrees, subject to the same problems.)

I think we need to focus on all the repair work that needs doing before we recover some of our lost advantages in the world. For the election, it's only enough to say of the Republitics "These guys are losing everywhere in every way, and we've got to get their hands off the controls."

And, yes, then use that 60%-70% agreement. For example, a timetable is great mainly because it is the only thing that will cool the growing number of Iraqis who want us out. If Bush had put one in place a year ago, even if it was over the next, say, five years , I doubt there'd be as much resistance as we see today. But failure to give a timetable is tantamount to "f-you, we're going when we're going."

Negative campaigning works. Job #1: The Captain is plainly disordered, and we've got to get his hands off the wheel. Yeah, we've got fixes (we do), but nothing is going to better as long as it stays the same in Washington.

I definitely agree with the outline. I think Democrats who are unwilling to talk about foreign policy are at are real disadvantage. Hackett shows how one can be against the war and still look strong.

I'd like to see buzzwords like 4GW and Asynchronous Warfare. Using the Rovian strategy of going for an opponent's strength, we really need to point out it is Bush and Chenney who are stuck with a pre-9/11 mentality. We really need to push hard that this isn't about states! We were not attacked on 9/11 by a state, but by an independent al Queda. But Republicans can't see it, so they keep leading us on these wild goose-chases.

Scott Coughlin --
all due respect but no respect due to Al.

Kevin --
There are 2 absolute problems in your outline:

1) I don't see there is any consensus to get down and serious in seeking an outcome to the Palestinian problem. I've seen no clue that Dems would actually act in an even-handed way to a solution any more than most Repubs.

2) An exit strategy to Iraq is a real conundrum. Bush has dragged the US unwittingly into a genuine quagmire from which there are no easy exits (at least none I can see), only very hard decisions to be made and sold. THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO STAND UP! The Kurds are already separating -- raised their own flag -- and being cornered by the Turks and Iranians.

Marketing is how you promote actual policies. What you've proposed is what we wouldn't do and some things we would undo, along with what we wish hadn't been done. The Repubs run both houses and the executive so the initiative does lie with them.

I would concentrate on those things they least like talking about right now.

Immigration: Dems are fairly united and the Repubs very split.

Their disregard for healthcare costs and disasters like the drug plan, the doughnut hole which many are running into right now.

Incompetence and lack of taking responsibility. Katrina and Iraq. Plenty of examples of heartrending disconnect, human tragedy, waste, fraud, cronyism, and dishonesty. No oversight (responsible behavior) from either Repub house.

The economy for most (75%) of the nation versus the fat cats and Republican gift-givers. Promised reform for K Street and corruption which NEVER HAPPENNED!!!

"Two more years of all this?"

No, Jim, there are already 100 Iraqis being killed on average in Iraq. How many more do you think have to be killed in order for it to be considered a civil war? Cutting and running sounds right out of the neoconservative playbook. Would you prefer that the troops instead keep getting blown up and picked apart by the resistance fighters? That strategy, as I mentioned earlier, should rightly be titled stay and die. Do you actually believe that if and when the United States were to actually leave Iraq that it would somehow be a victory for the terrorists? As Congressman Murtha has repeatedly tried to point out, only 7 per cent of those who are fighting the U.S. and coalition forces are considered terrorists. Again, that number is 7, not seventy. The overwhelming majority of those who are fighting against the United States are the resistance fighters, who are not going to rest until the occupying force is driven from their homeland. It has to be the height of arrogance for someone to suggest that the United States should continue to occupy another country that was never considered to be even a remote threat to the United States. The United States should withdraw those troops as rapidly and as quickly as possible. If not,then they will continue to get blown up and picked apart by the freedom fighters who long to rid themselves of a military which has heaped humiliation and beatings and killings upon the citizens of Iraq.

Whoever stays the course when they arrive at a cliff, is bound for a fall.

I'm so deep...

Isn't this the proposed Yglesias book?

Everyone

2 parter. First to respond to some of the issues raised by J.S.:

"2. Saying Iraq was a mistake doesn't tell us what TO DO NOW- this is no small matter- what's the Dem proposal- simply leave?"

Almost all programs/strategies for personal or organizational recovery have one essential requirement: admitting that one has a problem. If you think everything is fine you will never improve. OK, as Kevin writes, the vast majority of Dems agree that Iraq was a mistake. This is very important because it shows they realize that we have a problem.

Now, to be fair, the question you pose, "simply leave?" is a tough but fair one. The answer, also, unfortunately will be tough: Yes. Most objective observers (on both sides I am guessing) have concluded that we can not win. Once that determination is made leaving becomes the only option. The number of coaltion forces and Iraqis killed per month has now become a statistical function; we can predict the numbers within a variance of a few people. Once we know that we can not win, how we can justify these predictable and inevitable deaths?

Will things get worse in the short term when we pull out (in whatever fashion)? Sure. But what can we do about that? A guest on the Imus in the Morning Show related the opinion of a street-smart businessman who had spent time in Iraq. According to his friend (paraprased) "The place is gonna fall apart when we leave, whether it is in 10 weeks or 10 years, and a guy twice as bad as Hussein is gonna take over because he will be the only person who can pull the place together". When I heard these comments it sent a chill down my spine because I knew they were true.

"3. Yes, the GOP is overstating the case with Iran, but what do the Dems suggest if Iran doesn't respond to sanctions"

Luckily this is an easy one: measured diplomacy. Aside from the saber rattlers, no one thinks Iran will be anywhere close to nukes within the next 2 years. More than enough time to let a mature foreign policy team take over.

Part 2. Why do the current crop of Dems find it so hard to deal with Karl Rove and his minions? Do they buy the 'genius' bit? For those of you who are old enough, just imagine what a Dem pol like Lyndon Johnson would have done to Rove and his childish bag of dirty tricks--there would be nothing left but the smoking ashes!

Erroll:

Have you been paying attention to who those "freedom fighters" have actually been blowing up for the past few months? Hint: Mostly not Americans.

Democrats will be attacked as appeasers or warmongers no matter what. We have to realize that and deal with it. One Rove strategy is to go after opponents strengths. That's what Dems have to do. Right now, the GOP only has one "strength" and that's security.

I think the narrative should be: The GOP has been so DAMN INCOMPETENT that we are just as safe as if they hadn't done anything (Taliban coming back, Iraq a mess, the middle east more precarious, N. Korea, etc.). What's worse, we lack the support and trust of allies we need. They screwed us--and screwed us bad. Here's our plan...

Perhaps some grandstanding by shutting down the Senate to get port security settled at the same time Bush is giving one of his propoganda speeches where he compares critics to nazi sympathizers/appeasers. (Remember when the GOP got all hot and bothered when Durbin said our torture chambers sounded like Stalinesque gulags?) Seriously, if Bush wants to play politics with security, why not answer in kind--but with more than empty rhetoric. Dems can spin it as: If you elect us, we won't have to shut down the Senate to get things done. Stay with the GOP and you get speeches comparing 60% of Americans to nazi appeasers. (Isn't nazi germany pre-9/11?)

"Luckily this is an easy one: measured diplomacy."

That is an easy one. I guess. But what's it actually mean? What will a "mature" foreign policy team actually do while Iran is building those nukes?

sure great, but i personally think you left out the marquee issue which is and should be "prosecute, prosecute, prosecute." Everyone loves good TV for crying out loud.

The underlying theme to all this is "Get Real."

I suspect that's a message that a lot of voters are willing to listen to. After six years of fantasy, it would be nice to hear reality. But it's also a quick way to puncture any of the administration's vague rhetoric.

So, for instance...

Republican: Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. We cannot lose there.

Dem: Get real. We not only _can_ lose there, we _are_ losing there, and it's time to be honest about why so we _don't_ lose there.

Republican: Conservation isn't a policy. It may be a sign of personal virtue, but it's not a serious plan.

Democrat: Get real. Every dollar we spend on gas is another dollar that goes into the pockets of Iran and Saudia Arabia. Plus it contributes to global warming. But put that aside for the moment. Why do you think Iran can bankroll Hezbollah? Gas money.

Republican: We're fighting terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here.

Democrat: It's time to get real. We'll have to fight them everywhere until we can convince them that modernity is a better path than jihad. In the short term, that means securing our ports. In the long term, it means drying up the madrassas. But either way, the idea that the Iraq war is making us safer is a dangerous fantasy.

And on and on...

This administration has thrived on an elaborate, simplistic illusion for six years. The media supports it. But voters are souring. All we have to do is stand up and call the fantasy for what it is.

Ok, idiots crazy Dems, keep at these 2 items for your MARKETING campaign:

1. Emphasize the Paleostinians. They have about 10% support among the American public. I know that drives you fucking moonbatty.

2. Keep calling the jihadis(head-cutters) "freedom fighers". That will get you about 15% support too. I know that also must drive you fucking looney.

I'd like to see us reduce regulation and support traditional American moral values. And I don't like paying taxes either. So I see some problems with the Dems.

Snarky snark snark snark - fuck Bush - snark snark snark - fuck all conservatives - snark snarky snarky snark - fuck all Christians - snark snark snark snark - fuck Israel

Yup that's the typical post on this board. Keep it up lib-tards. That's SURE gonna win you many elections to come!

Rightwhingers certainly like to say "fuck" alot; Most likely because they ain't getting any.

Butty,

We aren't losing in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam and prevented the WMDs from getting into terrorist's hands. (That second part was really, really easy!) There is no win or lose left, all that is left is helping the Iraqi's rebuild their country.

Not only is the above true, I think it is the correct way to frame it.

Cut-n-run from what, exactly? Yes, they have begun a civil war, but it isn't like we've chosen sides. Ask the American people who they think we should fight, kill and die for: Shiite, Sunni or Kurd?

Rightwhingers certainly like to say "fuck" alot; Most likely because they ain't getting any.
Posted by: Disputo on September 6, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

That's only because it's one of the 7 words you understand. Maybe I'm being generous with saying it's 7.

I agree with most of your outline Kevin. From a marketing perspective, I would try to offer an alternative to both the way this Administration has sold their war against terrorism, and the way in which they've actually carried it out. Because they are totally opposite.

Some examples:
Finding OBL and sweeping up Al-Qaeda was actually considered by the Admin. to more difficult than regime change in Iraq.

Infiltrating and gathering viable intelligence on Al-Qaeda is hard work. Breaking an Afghani taxi driver's knee caps is relatively easy.

Finding terrorism cells in the U.S. is tough; tapping everyone's phones is not.

See where this is going? Whenever the administration was tasked with a difficult job they took the easy way out and failed. They have spent the last five years selling their actions as tough when they are actually cowardly and counterproductive. The vast majority of Americans would favor the full force of this country being used against our enemies if we could be sure that the sacrifices on both sides would lead to a better situation.

The Democratic position should be to seek out the core problems that put our safety in question and to attack them with everything we have, whether that be military, economic or diplomatic force.

This requires genuine support for democracy...

Jeez, didn't you guys learn anything from Iraq?

It's this sort of political correctness that got us into Iraq. "The Iraqi people are just like us, and if we just get rid of the dictator Saddam they will take to the Anglo-American culture our country was built on like ducks to water."

You can't put too fine a point on the NSA program issue.

It's not that we disagree with the program.

We disagree with how it's been implemented: sans warrants or judicial oversight.

Yes, if bin Laden is calling someone in the US - I want authorities to know about it, and know why. And I also want a judge to know about it.

Anything less is UnAmerican.

But anyway, my point is, Kevin, you've GOT to make that clear. Because the righties out there will say that if you oppose the NSA program, you are also prone to beheading kittens with a nail file.

"Measured diplomacy" means giving Iran lots of good reasons not to build nukes. They will certainly go for them now because they have noticed a certain phenomenon:

"Axis of Evil" country with no nukes, Iraq: invaded and leadership deposed.

"Axis of Evil" country with nukes, North Korea: Not invaded and corrupt leader still enjoying French wines and scantilly clad "Happy" girl troupe!

Anyway, diplomacy means lining up your friends, using carrots and sticks wisely and establishing and using back channels to talk to countries you don't have normalized relations with. This is what real diplomats do and we have seen precious little of that from the current crew.

I mean, come on folks, if you think we have problems now just imagine a post-Iran invasion world. At the very least I've read that Iran has 2-3000 plus spies embedded in Iraq and I'll bet you those guys would get real busy....!

"Domestically, we nearly all agree that we should spend more on things like port security and chemical plant security."

Are you actually naiive enough to believe that Democrats are actually serious about those issues? They use it as a way to attack Republicans, nothing more. When in power, they will do nothing in that regard. You are confusing talking points with conviction.

(The other points of agreement you mention are, in varying degrees, subject to the same problems.)

Pont C: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Ditto for you, Al, GOP and the Gang of Trolls. Your boys don't give fuck-all about real security unless it's abyproduct of stuffing money into the pockets of their money men. The record is STUFFED with examples of Democratic initiatives to fund exactly these areas and more.
Rep. Obey THREE YEARS AGO, as part of a BIPARTISAN group, expressed strong concern that port security was being neglected and needed to be funded, and Bush told him that he had a dollar figure in mind for port security and basically didn't give a shit what the investigaors had come up with.
And there's more where that came from, jerk.
http://tinyurl.com/j8x9n

More on MARKETING:

Don't say "we oppose torture and rendition".

Say instead - "We support the harshest punishments for proven terrorists. We support due process for unproven terrorists - until they are proven terrorists."

I agree with the others - linkage with energy policy, and security - Material Security, Economic Security, and Ecological/Environmental Security.

Rich C also said some very smart things about tying the battle against religious islamic militant fundamentalism with judaic militant fundamentalism and christian militant fundamentalism.
Gore said it best: We want to build a bridge to the future, not the past.

But the bottom line is - the only way Dems will convince me they're serious if they make this their primary campaigh slogan:

"Elect us, and we WILL IMPEACH the traitorous, war-profiteering scum, and then we will prosecute the War on militant religious fundamentalism with the seriousness it deserves."

Kevin,

It's pretty simple really.

1.
Principle: Terrorism is the result of demonstrable failure of leadership to utilize diplomacy and can only be solved by cross-societal engagement and police enforcement.

Personal Narrative: You refuse to talk with people they start using violence to get your attention, the more you ignore the more they invest increasing the power of their violent acts.

2.

Principle: All attempts to address terrorism as a military issue world wide have always been and continue to be utter and complete failures in every measurable dimension.

Personal Narrative: When someone feels they have nothing to lose the threat of death will not sway them. Permit a person a stake in changing their situation and they will have a reason to value thier lives.

3.

Our Constitution is the crown jewel of American society and the rights it ascribes to citizens is the true wealth of the nation. To curtail any aspect of this legacy is profoundly unAmerican and profoundly dangerous to the security of the nation and the world.

Personal Narrative: Speaks for itself. Easily translatable to specific instances NSA, torture, detention, tribunals, etc.

4.

As to solutions to Iraq and proposition of engagements with Iran and others:

The endless warmongering of the current crop of Republicans is a colossal failure and was only possible because of their complete and ruthless control of both the legislative agenda and the national diaglogue. We can not begin meaningfully discussing solutions until the Republicans are forced into a position to meaningfully share power. This means we must control one or both legislative branches of government to prevent the mindless continuation of this disastorous approach to foreign policy.

Any other approach to address these problems is doomed to failure because the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated to the Democrats and the public their complete unwillingness to listen to or deal rationally with person outside of their own political operational bunkers and their closest circle of finanacial backers.

Personal Narrative: To quote the Ariel Sharon, the Democrats can find no viable partner within the current leadership of the Republican party in either the legislative or executive branches of government and so must persue as primary policy legislative regime change in order to foster the Republican party to select better more productive representation for itself. Once this process is compelte we can return to the real business of the nation and begin to solve the many international disasters fostered and created by the current administration.

the only way Dems will convince me they're serious

Democrats don't really need to market themselves to us do they? Not at this point anyway. This is about convincing people who have seen the failures of this administration to take a second look at Democrats.

Six years of opposing this administration can cause myopia. Most people are not opposed to overthrowing dictators if they think it will work. Democrats need to convince the public that they will do whatever it takes, even ugly things, if the end result is positive.

If Democrats are committed to solving our problems with their eyes open, informing the public about their intentions, and preparing the public for what the ramifications of those actions are likely to be, Americans are much more likely to come to the right conclusions and influence those policies to better ends.

Kevin,
your domestic policy agenda looks like just more foriegn policy to me (only domestically implemented).

Where is talk of necessary tax increases (and/or tax reform), of balancing the budget? Of health insurance? Of the coming corporate pensions crisis? Of stronger anti-trust enforcement? Of balancing the power of workers and corporations? Of reinvigoring worker safety enforcement. Has nothing happened this last 5 years that needs to be set right?

We need a policy that fits on a bumper sticker!

How about

Truth, Justice and the American Way

or, negatively,

6 years of failure is enough

More constructively,

Give Intelligence a Chance, for a Change

or less so,

Only an Idiot would Stay this Course

How about, for showing a little attitude,

Terrorists are Pussies

I refute feminist objections by recalling one morning when I went into the kitchen to make coffee, wearing only jeans, and a lovely little adorable kitten ran straight up my bare back using only its claws. AAAAARGH!

The problem with your approach, Kevin, is that the Republicans have 'Fear! Hitler! Fear!' in their toolbox. As much as most people are pig-sick of it, fear-hitler-fear is still

Look at the rhetorical buildup: I caught one of Hannity's radio guests today predicting unspecified doom if the Democrats take control of the House. How do you deal with that? What worse will happen? Will Speaker Pelosi lead to 3000 dead from a terrorist attack? That's already happened. 3000 Americans dead in a war which kills thousands of innocents? That's already happened. The public image of the US in the toilet? That's already happened.

Seriously, when you're dealing with people who shit themselves in thunderstorms, rational policy goes only so far.

Kevin's column sounds a lot more reasonable than the leading Democratic politicians. Those geniuses seem to think that firing Rumsfeld constitutes an alternative policy on Iraq. Kevin has laid out a reasonable set of principles. I don't think they'll work as well as Bush's approach, but I could be wrong. At the very least Kevin's policies are a basis for serious debate.

If Dems had been offering plausible alternatives all along, their suggestions might have led to superior foreign policy. Unfortunately, they have mostly thrown stones at Bush, which doesn't lead anywhere.

Kevin Drum for Democratic Leader of the Senate!

ex-liberal,
Since Rumsfeld's policies are as effective at controlling terrorism as using an M-80 to get rid of a fire ant infestation, simply getting rid of him would be an improvement.

’’Liberals, being the useful idiots they are, are doing Bin Laden's media campaign for him. I hope you libs are proud of yourselves.’’

Al, why do you hate democracy so much. You know, there are plenty of one-party states to which you could happily emigrate -- places where you could draw your talking points directly from Dear leader’s ass and would never be forced to read the topic you felt obliged to respond to. Oh wait; you do that now.

Kevin,

I agree with most of what you say.

You, and most Democrats, take a very pragmatic view of homeland security and terrorism. See the threat, build a response. But one of the clear, underlying themes of the Republican response to 9/11 has been panic-induced opportunism and self-dealing that has led to billions of wasted tax dollars and no measurable improvement in our national security.

Tom Davis's Government Reform Committee, the GAO and many other mainstream, independent political organizations have come to the conclusion that much of our $40 billion annual Homeland Security budget is simply wasted.

Waste and abuse needs to be addressed because it explains a lot about the Republicans' cohesion on the terrorism issue. They have applied old-style Chicago machine politics to security issues on a national scale.

Virtually no Republican pocket has gone unlined, whether it be in the rush to interview and hire 40,000 TSA baggage handlers at plush resorts or in the thousands of purchased and as yet unused emergency trailers for displaced Katrina victims. A 1/2 billion dollar, non-competed trailer contract went to a company with a long history of contributions to Republican campaigns, and their trailers sit unused and deteriorating in parking lots hundreds of miles away from the devastation.

This corruption issue undermines Republicans on a number of fronts -- their posturing as patriots and supporters of our troops; their hypocrical claims of integrity on budget issues; their arrogant presumption of administrative expertise.

Opposing corruption is directly related to national security but it does not form the core of national security policy. Many of your recommendations address this. But if you want to give a Democratic national security policy some sizzle, don't forget to address corruption.

Also, don't forget the UN and NGOs. UNICEF is a potential ally in addressing the horrible quality of teenage religious indoctrination at these madrassas. What the Islamic fundamentalists are doing to their youth at these "schools" is unconscionable. But we need to pay our dues to have any influence at the UN, which means Bolton and people like him have to go. We need to stop treating the UN as a backwater diplomatic assignment where we park troublesome yet loyal party hacks. Put some real talent in Turtle Bay.

Doesn't this summarize as:

1. No plan on Iraq

2. Screw over Israel to appease the Arabs

3. Stop getting upset and learn to love the Iranian Bomb?

You need to be concise - The average American's attention span is about ten syllables. Hence, the success of Republican soundbites (e.g. Mission accomplished, cut and run, stand down when they stand up). Your current post was an example of liberal's inability to be concise.

Come up with a ten syllable sound bite for what our policy should be, and then we move forward.

How about this?

"No Iraq Plan, Screw Israel, Live with Iran Bomb"

It's 10 syllables...

Agree with your point about the similarities in Democratic positions but think our fearless leaders in congress will not risk actually saying anything. Thus we languish and lose, justifiably, the trust of the people. We need new leaders.

Fridman, Deflator, etc.,

Maybe it's because Republicans have over-simplified national and homeland security into 10-second sound bites that they have so many failures to point to.

Talk about the bigotry of soft expectations. Give the American people credit for seeing beyond military solutions to every security problem.

You can enter a house by blowing a hole through the door with a howitzer, or you can try knocking on the door. You guys are part of the "howitzer first" crowd, and the limitations of this approach are painfully evident in places like Iraq.

1 : criticising Bush et al is sufficent since it's very easy given situation to convince people that change in and of itself will be a welcome improvement. This is the smart strategy since ...

2 : the concensus you speak of Kevin is an illusion that, as things stand now, will fall apart once pressure is applied. Constant reiteration of Bush flaws and mistakes will keep pressure on GOP and off Dems.

Of course that will not hold true once presidential race begins in earnest. McCain will win if Dems cannot sound 'viable' viz foreign policy. A hollow concensus between factions on the left spells trouble.

Hysterical is the wrong word, marketing-wise. It implies that we think conservatives are overly alarmed about the very real and formidable threat of terrorism. That is substantively wrong. What we're concerned about is that the Bush administration and conservatives have taken a very stupid and unserious (to use a word from your previous post) approach to terrorism. They are trying to defuse mines with jackhammers, and then accusing the bomb experts of being wusses and appeasers when we tell them that they don't know what they're doing. Might without wisdom is a mighty dangerous thing. Can't Democrats get this across?

Kevin,

I can agree with well over the 70% threshhold you mention. For domestic policy the percent would be even higher.

My question is: Is the swath a land that includes Iraq, Iran and all the -stans ready for modernity. Or is the West (capitalism) rushing folks that have tribal loyalties into the future too fast?

Americans are in a constant state of pissing down their legs at the slightest provocation. Bottled water on an airplane results in fighter squadrons scrambled, fire trucks assembled on the tarmac and the FBI and CIA assembled en masse with guns drawn to take down the offender. Doze off and mumble something about Mohammed in your sleep and suddenly you're duct taped to your seat, bloodied and bruised. In this enviroment the policy that works best is "BOO!" Bush has "BOO!" down pat. Democrats want to move beyond "BOO!" and do something substantive about terrorism. As long as America's shoes are full of piss it's not going to happen.

I don't recall who said it, maybe in the Bush I v. Clinton in '91 (Cueball & Begala?):

"It's the economy, stupid."

Hammer incessantly and I mean even maybe a new definition of incessant, on the economy and the cost of health care for the next 26 months and the Dems will have the White House & Congress.

Now that the King has been shown to have no clothes, that is all the grass root citizen talks about. "What if I get sick?" What if I lose my job?" Make it a class war, the few CEOs who make tens of millions in bonuses v. the 100s of thousands who lose their pensions or get laid off in a cost cutting move.

I'm here. I'm on the ground surrounded by these folks. An honest marketing campaign will absolutely work. Will require beaucoup dollars.

Oh, and don't bad-mouth Walmart too much. It is the only place these folks have to go to stretch their few dollars. Bashing Walmart might be counter productive.

With all due respect, the Democrats that I know are against illegal immigration, not for it. And I know Democrats who will vote Repub. if the Democrats embrace immigration, which the middle class pays for and the upper class benefits from.

I think economics should be a big factor... the middle class is a sinking ship, the super rich get tax breaks and many pay no taxes at all. This is obviously unfair and I think would resonate.

Finally... don't forget the Medicare debacle. Many seniors/disabled were forced into RX drug programs that are totally beyond comprehension and common sense and that cost a HUGE amount since the legislation was written by the drug companies (AARP helped pass this since they get many millions of dollars from it selling a drug plan). This is an issue that is DEFINITELY a winner for Dems. Bush lied about the cost, passed a plan that is rubbish.

Obviously foreign policy is critical-- I agree it should be stressed that Bush has made the foreign policy blunder of the century and forced us into a situation which is bad no matter which way you look at it. He has strengthened Iran. There is no democracy in Iraq, there is a bloodbath with our troops in the middle.

It is "marketing" (i.e., getting the message out). Not how often the Republicans say "the Democrrats have no plan" usually within 60 seconds of saying our plan won't work. Santorum did that several times to Bob Casey on Meet the Press and notice how many times Tim Russert called Santorum on this nonsense - ZERO.

How can you talk about what to do about the war on terror and not even mention ENERGY INDEPENDENCE? WTF? This should be front and center!! Every day we're funding terrorists at the pump...this needs to stop...imagine how this message could resonate with every American regardless of their political inclination.

Just read what Butty wrote.

That is pretty good marketing.

If Dems had been offering plausible alternatives all along

check out Bush's new strategy. note that it, and all other revisions before it, slowly approaches what Dems have been suggesting all along.

As long as you are running against Republicans you wil be called an appeaser regardless of your policies.

While the Democrats can talk about how much more effective they'll be on terrorism and jihadism, there are darned few chances for them to show it while not in power. We'll probably get more indication of how they'll approach things if, as looks probable, they recapture the House. The trouble is, the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Port security is very tough. It is less a matter of scanning arriving containers than obtaining the cooperation of authorities in the ports of origin - something the current administration is already working on, with some success.

It will take over a year to pull out of Iraq, once the decision to leave has been made. A complete handover will take time and the security situation has to be conducive to a safe withdrawal. There is no guarantee that the violence will abate once we announce we are leaving and the nobody wants to be the last man killed in an abandoned cause. Even as we withdraw our people, we'll still need to continue our air and reconnaissance support to whatever Iraqi forces we leave in place.

As we withdraw, the military leadership will want to bring the troops home, rather than simply redeploy them somewhere in the region. They will correctly assume that keeping large numbers of troops in Kuwait will serve no purpose, since, having just withdrawn, there is almost nothing that will induce us to go back into Iraq. There is little reason to insert large numbers of conventional troops into Afghanistan, unless we intend to subdue the Hindu Kush, which is hardly a good idea. Engagement elsewhere is unlikely, unless it is to Darfur and that will have only a minor affect on terrorism. We are unlikely to go back into Somalia. And wherever we "redeploy" to in the region, we'll remain the target of terrorists, though without the ability to strike back. Besides, by now the opponents of the Iraq campaign have now poisoned the well against the use of military forces anywhere. (It'll just create more terrorists, won't it? We lost in Iraq, didn't we?)

As Kevin correctly points out, that leaves diplomacy and "support for democratic movements," whatever that means (covert agents? Backchannel money?). With regard to Iran, diplomacy probably means some version of what we are already doing.

With regard to Israel, our policy would remain almost exactly the same as it is now. We will still support their military. We will still support a two state solution. We will still consider Hezbollah a dangerous, terrorist organization.

None of this smells like success, much less victory. Hard to market the idea of abandoning the Iraqi situation and (apparently) going back to same old, same old. Come to think of it, though, intervention in Darfur might serve the trick of diverting attention for a while, but won't affect jihadism much.

It will be a tough sell.

Marketing your ideas for abandoning Iraq?

The Democrats are devoid of reason when they don't believe their own ideas and want to sell them to America. Sounds like P.T. Barnum is wanting suckers to vote Democrat.

Amusing that "marketing" will solve what to do with the policy vacuum in the Democratic Party. Casey was pitiful on MTP last Sunday. Once you break the tie to Lieberman, you are unmoored from reality. For example, what could the President do in the Israeli-Palestinian situation with negotiation that Clinton didn't do ? Once Arafat walked away from the 2000 proposals, negotiation was over. Only Chamberlain would think otherwise, and that is what you want; Israel as Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Kevin,
I agree we need to "market" -- that is expose to the public -- our plans for dealing with the terrorist threat. We need to be much more forthright about what we mean when we say withdraw troops -- pull many of not most of them out of Iraq and redeploy them to peripheral countries; we need to respond to the announcement that Pakistan has signed an agreement with the Taliban!!! to leave each other alone; we need to focus on cleaning up Afghanistan, perhaps even deploying some of those Iraqi troops THERE to confront the Taliban and Al Qaeda, especially now that Pakistan is abdicating its role in confronting them.

We then need to spell out how we would convene an international conference to begin addressing the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, with more focus on small potatoes stuff instead of rebuilding oil infrastructure.

Finally, we need to make it VERY CLEAR to the American people that we see the terror threat quite clearly as a threat against us here at home and begin the process of hardening our defenses of our ports, chemical plants, dams, and other vital national infrastructure using some of the billions of dollars diverted to Iraq now. And as we pull our pecuniary resources home we need to engage Iran in proposals for sharing "nucular " technology that will obviate their need to develop nuclear weapons. I like the idea of knocking on the door rather than blowing a hole in the wall with a howitzer. I feel that the conflict with Iran is an example of that, much as Iraq was.

Ahmadinedjad is just as full of bluster as Bush when talking to his base, but given a real possibility of diplomacy and negotiation absent neocon threats of nuclear bombing, he might just reach real compromise and avoid the necessity for yet more bloodshed.

Assertive leadership; strategic restraint.

Need a meme to flip the "any opposition to military action is appeasement" theme - strategic restraint does this by making clear that when restraint is exercised, it is for strategic reasons, not knee-jerk pacifism. On the other hand, it sets up a reciprocal comparison to ask how "maximum force all the time" is strategic, by insisting that advocates stipulate exceptions - when is force NOT appropriate? If that question can't be answered coherently by hawks, they have no strategy, just an ideology.

I haven't heard anything "new" from the Democrats on Iraq

admitting your own ignorance is the first step in learning something new.

Personally, I'm drawn toward politicians that express honesty, rationality, pragmatism, intelligence, and a strong sense of an American community. Assholes that say what you want to hear? Not so much.

Honesty and an open dialogue concerning the problems we face. It could be the theme if we had 250 decent politicians.

Of course Democrats don't have a great plan on how to deal with Iraq. They also have no plan on how to escape a train wreck in process.

Iran? No miracle solution there either. The bullet was fired at the foot several years ago when we decided to forgo low level diplomatic ties for belligerent threats in the state of the union.

Israel? Some one smarter needs to start calling the shots over there or there is little we can do to help them. tough love

Military action? What's wrong with the Powell doctrine and agressive support of UN / AU peace keeping missions?

4. How specifically will the Dems support democracy and human rights?

I'd sugesst that trade agreements, military agreements, and aid agreements should be contingent on continual improvement on these fronts. We should be vocal at the UN and work diplomatically to get other countries to exert pressure also. No giant exceptions should be made to appease multinational corporations or Uzbek dictators. As the rest of the world pays a lot more attention to international news, hypocrisy won't cut it.

It's pretty old school, but "hold elections or feel the boot on your neck" hasn't worked too well so far.

-----------
BTW, am I the only one who is annoyed by FZ's reactive punditry. He'll tell you what we shouldn't do after it's painfully obvious, but in a slight vacuum he's drawn toward broad stroke idiocy like Bush's Iraqi adventure and Reagan's war on central america.

Cable News also seems to use him for the "colored man of Islam" perspective when he's no more in tune with the muslim street than Oprah Winfrey is with rappers.

I agree that this is a solid outline; a brainstorm. I hope to see you develop it into a compelling narrative.
America's Least Wanted

I agree with Swopa. Broad Middle East policy is beside the point -- American voters want someone to address THEIR security concerns. The only thing I'd add to his post is that we should make an issue out of how the GOP uses fear as an electoral weapon.

Thomas1:

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years.

If by "for several years" Bolten means "the last month of 2005 and the first 8 months of 2006", this is accurate. The US transition to a "clear and hold" counterinsurgency strategy was announced by Bush on Nov. 30, 2005. This was after, not before, Murtha's call for the US to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq.

Any casual perusal of the headlines reveals this to be empty propaganda. The Iraqi Army is a hollow shell; its only components which do function effectively and retain loyalty and motivation are themselves Shiite militias.

Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

This is a meaningless statement; the part before "tracks" bears no relationship to the part after. Iraq "is a central front in the war against terror" in the same sense that Stalingrad was a central front in the German war against the USSR. It was a dumb place for the Germans to pick as a central front.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented.

And (d) no one has ever heard of, including 99% of Iraqis.

Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation

I.e., never.

and when our military commanders believe the time is right.

Translation: when it will not unfavorably impact Republican reelection campaigns.

The President is being guided by a commitment to victory

And by a tiny man with wings who stands on his right shoulder, not by the foulmouthed little guy with the pitchfork on his left.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people.

And subsequently abandoned them to anarchy, civil war, theocracies and opium cultivation.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Avast! He blows! The White Whale! I'll have him yet, the monster! Glub...blub...blub...

I'm all ears.

try being a little more Google

It is definitely a marketing question. But it is not simply a matter of all of us agreeing that in the future we need to do X,Y, and Z.

The REAL problem is figuring out the best way to break through the Republican propaganda that at one time had 70% of Americans believing the demonstrable untruth that Saddam did 9/11.

This is the real problem because no matter what we agree upon and what makes sense, if the Republicans are able to reshape reality on tv, then it doesn't matter what we think or what the truth is.

This means our marketing strategy has to include the fundamental notion of ACCOUNTABILITY. We have to condemn the Republicans for having lied to the country and having gotten us into this mess.

This maes clear the real problem for the Democrats. We may all agree that we have to do X, Y, and Z in the future, but there is less agreement on what happened in the past and who should be held accountable for what.

But holding the Republicans accountable is indispensable for 2 reasons:

1) An accountability message has the right fire power to break through the Republican propaganda stranglehold. Arguments that we would have managed the war better or that we would cooperate with the UN better just don't have that force.

2) The accountability strategy is sustainable. By breaking the Republican spell, it will prevent them from simply reshaping reality again in their favor.

I think the unifying theme here is:

COMMON SENSE

If it was good enough for Thomas Paine, it's good enough for the Democrats.

You don't even have to rework Paine's arguments very much:

- It is ridiculous for the United States to take responsibility for the formation and management of goverments halfway across the globe. Acting as the world's nanny will continue to drag America into unnecessary wars, and keep it from the international commerce at which America excels.

- America is no longer a "British nation"; it is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. Legal immigration should be expanded and encouraged to maintain this tradition and cut down on illegal immigration.

- Terrorism is a problem, and its not going away any time soon. We need to invest more in border and port security, counter-terrorism intelligence efforts, and special forces. Securing our borders will also cut down on illegal immigration.

- That government is best which governs least. Individual freedom is a cornerstone of this country and should not be subordinated to temporary panics.

- At the same time, government is a necessary evil for the functioning of our society and economy: Our society could not function without an effective legal system (including tort law), law enforcement and first responders, public roads and mass transit, etc. Therefore, federal, state, and local governments should not be neglected or starved.

- Oil is a finite resource, and our dependence on it forces us to make nice with many of the despicable regimes that control much of the world's oil supplies. Our consumption of oil is also creating an environmental disaster by cooking the planet. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment that we all must live in, we must (a) conserve energy whenever possible, and (b) find dependable alternative sources of energy as soon as possible.

- There is no reason for the US to spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Expensive, unnecessary and ineffective weapons systems such as the Osprey and SDI should be abandoned. Furthermore, the men and women of our armed forces are the lifeblood of our national defense, and we should invest in them, including increased pay, increased health benefits, and better personal equipment.

- We are a community, and each of us has an obligation to help make our community better. At age 18, every person should be required to spend two years in national service -- either the military, americorps, or the peace corp. (this is a personal issue...probably not something the dems would want to adopt at this point).

- No one should have to pay excessive taxes, but everyone should pay their fair share, esp. because we don't want to saddle our children and grandchildren with a massive national debt. We should return to the tax system that was in place in 2000.

- Our healthcare system is broken. It is incredibly frustrating and expensive for most Americans who have health insurance, in part because millions of Americans don't have any insurance at all, driving up the costs for everyone else. And who benefits? Not the doctors or nurses -- mostly just the insurance companies. We need to fix our health care system by adopting a single payer system.

One thing about the Mid East: instead of insisting on "democracy," which is problematic at best, why not work for a "market-based solution." A big cause of jihadism is the desperation born in young men who have no viable--or visable--economic future. Go the China route: put capitalism first, let the democracy come as it may, preferably from within.

Plus, wouldn't you just love to rub "market-based solution" into the faces of the Reptilicans? How could they oppose it? Talk about triangulation and stealing thunder.

If I'm not mistaken, it's worked in Norther Ireland. What happened to the IRA, anyway? They all got jobs and don't have time to fool around. So there's the "idle hands are the devil's workshop" line, too. Steal religion AND capitalism.

What's not among your points of agreement:
how many American troops are to remain in Iraq?
what is their mission to be?
Aren't these questions those of greatest importance?

"No Iraq Plan, Screw Israel, Live with Iran Bomb"

How about: "No Iraq plan, Screw up Middle East, Live with North Korean Bomb" as a summary of the Bush administration policies..

McCord wrote:
I'm so tired of pants-wetting Republicans continually trying to demean this great nation by goading it into a quivering, hysterical fear of terrorism.

I'll bet you were the one wetting your pants on September 11th. So sad the left has forgotton the lessons of that day. Fortunately for America, they aren't in power. And won't be for many, many years.

How can anyone at this point (even the most obtuse neocon) still believe promoting democracy can help eliminate 'jihadism'? The whole notion was ridiculous on its face from the very beginning. Jihadists can be elected just as easily (or more probably much more easily) in a religiously intolerant society.

It seems more likely that bolstering the secular and religiously tolerant states in the M.E. economically would have made sense. It is the secular and tolerant nature of a society not anything to do with democracy, especially some ersatz form of democracy imposed from without, that would have quelled the spread of jihadism.

Abandon the stupid rhetoric about democracy promotion. Talk about bolstering the secular and tolerant economically.