October 27, 2006
FLIP FLOPPING ON NATIONAL SECURITY....Dan Drezner thinks the national security debate has fundamentally changed in the past couple of weeks:
For the past five years, Democrats have been vulnerable on national security issues. Bush and the Republicans projected a clear image of taking the war to the enemy, and never yielding in their drive to defeat radical Islamists. The Democrats, in contrast, projected either an antiwar position or a "yes, but" position. The former looked out of step with the American people, the latter looked like Republican lite. No matter how you sliced it, the Republicans held the upper hand.
The recent rhetorical shift on Iraq, however, has flipped this phenomenon on its head. If Bush acknowledges that "stay the course" is no longer a statisfying status quo, he's acknowledging that the Republican position for the past few years has not worked out too well. If that's the case, then Republicans are forced to offer alternatives with benchmarks or timetables or whatever. The administration has had these plans before, but politically, it looks like the GOP is gravitating towards the Democratic position rather than vice versa.
If this is what the political optics look like, then the Republicans will find themselves in the awkward position of being labeled as "Democrat lite" in their positions on Iraq. And in elections, lite never tastes as good as the real thing.
The mainstream media has run plenty of stories about the meltdown in Iraq and the administration's resultant flip flopping on timelines and blueprints and so forth. But I've seen very few pieces acknowledging that, in practice, this means the administration is adopting the Democratic position from last year. Why? Because that would mean that Democrats were actually right about a major national security issue and had a more serious response to it at an earlier date than the Republicans did. And that would cause everyone's brain to explode. After all, everyone knows that Democrats aren't serious about national security. Right?
—Kevin Drum 12:14 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (36)
we told you so
Posted by: mr. irony on October 27, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK
I am surprised by the lack of headlines announcing that our Secretary of Defense just had a nervous breakdown in front of a live audience. More surprising is his continued tenure in the office that controls the largest military apparatus in the history universe.
Or may be not that surprising, given the supine media and the press, and the nutless opposition whose only goal is to win by default.
Posted by: gregor on October 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK
Because that would mean that Democrats were actually right about a major national security issue and had a more serious response to it at an earlier date than the Republicans did.
Kevin, liberals have been wrong about every major national security issue. I'll just list a few.
1. Al-Qaeda. When Clinton heard about where Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, rather than send troops to invade Afghanistan, Clinton was distracted by having sex with Monica Lewinsky and bombed them too late letting Bin Laden escaped. This was exposed in the ABC documentary Path to 9/11.
2. No response to the attack on the USS Cole by Al-Qaeda because he was afraid it would offend the Arabs.
3. Iraq. Rather than liberate Iraqis from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers, Clinton continued his failed policy of sanctions. Because of that, we will never know how much WMDs Saddam and his Baathist regime developed before Bush's liberation.
4. North Korea. Policy of appeasement lead to North Korea getting nukes.
5. Iran. Developing nukes because of the Clinton's appeasement policy.
6. Hezbollah. Ordered Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and because of that Hezbollah is now waging war against Israel underming the Jewish state's national security.
In sum, the democrats have been wrong about everything.
Posted by: Al on October 27, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK
I think you are spot on, Kevin. I've seen a number of Republicans both locally and nationally who have essentially rephrased Murtha's plan from last year.
Of course, rather than acknowledging that Murtha and other D's suggested this same (sensible, I think) plan a year ago (and $100 billion dollars, and 5000 killed and wounded American kids ago), they are trying to instead frame the Democratic position as immediate and total withdrawal, tomorrow- which I have yet to hear any Democratic candidate suggest. But that has never stopped them before, and certainly not in this horrifyingly ugly political season.
Murtha was right. We were right. Unfortunately, that's small comfort now.
Posted by: pdq on October 27, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK
I've seen very few pieces acknowledging that, in practice, this means the administration is adopting the Democratic position from last year. Why? Because that would mean that Democrats were actually right about a major national security issue and had a more serious response to it at an earlier date than the Republicans did.
The Reptiles' so-called strength on national security is nothing but a decades-long branding effort. It's ironic that Bush's feckless incompetence ruined that brand for a generation in less than six years. It'd be amusing, if the price wasn't so tragically high.
Posted by: Gregory on October 27, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin,
Have processed the information - Could you please move on to the next thread.
Hey, this FFT really works.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 27, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK
The problem with the Democratic position on Iraq isn't that it was wrong or right, but that it wasn't focused.
Some Democratic factions were right about some things, other factions were wrong about others. As a whole, the Democrat's position on Iraq was all over the place -- no consistent message.
Not a problem for me, but it is for many voters.
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 27, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK
I don't really think the Dems are proven to be "actually right" when the administration adopts their point of view. Getting an idiot to change his mind doesn't mean you're right.
Posted by: dj moonbat on October 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
Flip-flopping? So what else is new?
For several years, the Pubs have insisted that 1600 does not rely on polls - Trools, no misspelling intended, rhymes with fools, said that Clinton would merely stick his penis out of the window to test the political winds and/or for the benefit of any intern performing window washing duties.
A couple of days ago, Karl Rove told NPR's "All Things Considered" that the reason he was optimistic about Nov 7 was because of the daily results of the 68 polls being conducted by the RNC. As Jonathan Alter has observed, the Pubs have put a ton of money into specialized polling of critical areas. So all of this talk of "No reliance upon polls" is another example of Size 15 EEE Flip-Flops (not to be worn by the Northwestern women's championship team, though).
Posted by: stupid git on October 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK
See, the Democrats are unserious because they suggested the plan a year ago. The GOP is serious because they've reassessed the situation very seriously and have come to the serious conclusion that a plan similar to, but inherently more serious than, the Dems' is the only serious course of action. Seriosuly.
Posted by: NTodd, CT's Next Senator on October 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
Al nails it,Exept he needs to put republican in the sentence where he put liberals.Then Al nails it.The Cole is Bush's thing not Clinton,Unless Al thinks Clinton should have stayed in office longer.
Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
I am surprised by the lack of headlines announcing that our Secretary of Defense just had a nervous breakdown in front of a live audience.
What's this about?
Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
Who was the physicist who said of another's theory, "He's so out of it, he's not even wrong?" Al makes me think of this remark often.
Posted by: Ace Franze on October 27, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK
"Back off, Stefan"
Posted by: stupid git on October 27, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK
Sorry, mhr, but thanks to your boy George -- the president of defeat -- that brand is no good anymore.
Posted by: Gregory on October 27, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
The mainstream media
Why is this term still being used when its clear that the media is in bed with Republican party?
Posted by: AkaDad on October 27, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
Come on, this is a country where Matt Lauer can claim that lots of people believe that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms BEFORE Rush Limbaugh suggested that spin to them.
Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.
Democrat timetables: cut and run and treason
Republican timetables: helping our friends stand up.
Posted by: jerry on October 27, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin "You are the man. I have been trying to put your very idea across for some time. I am overjoyed for you to ease this thought out into the public domain.
"Democrats Finally Debunk "Stay the Course"
is on my website and on Daily Kos, dairy 0f 10.13 and Juan Cole, and My Left Wing, and many more sites. I even have a cherished Email from a national political jounalist, to wit, "Craig, I am as powerless as everybody else." (to get this message out.)
I'll close this post and post my long form in the subsequent post.
"Plans of Democratic Party Now Dominate Iraq Strategy"
Posted by: cognitorex on October 27, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
Plans of Democratic Party Now Dominate Iraq Strategy
When the GOP blows its false trumpet and hollers that the Dems have no plans for Iraq I suggest they first bite down on the following sentence.
"Redeployment" is now the leading strategy for Iraq with a bipartisan world-wide cast coming on board.
Jack Murtha, a Democrat, at some personal political risk announced that "our presence in Iraq has become the cause, not the cure, for much of the violence." This has now been openly confirmed by many others, including the presently serving United Kingdom Army Chief of Staff.
Murtha's wisdom is now a major policy plank for an Iraq solution.
Murtha, a Democrat, was the first to call for implementation of a plan to "redeploy." This, a Democrat plan, is becoming the majority opinion strategy for Iraq.
Joe Biden, a Democrat, was the first major political figure to forcefully call for a partition plan for Iraq, a Tri-Part solution. This too has, in various forms, become an operational strategy/thought towards solving the internecine Iraqi violence.
When the GOP attempts to paint Democrats as weak on terror and having no plans for Iraq solutions it only serves as a continuing illustration of their bankrupt and inept foreign policy.
"Stay the Course" has put our Troops in harm's way. "Stay the Course" has hamstrung our now openly angry and frustrated Military leadership. "Stay the Course" has now been openly exposed for what it is, a disingenuous mantra employed by the GOP for political gain.
Democrats have changed the debate and the strategy for Iraq.
They, the Democratic Party, will continue to seek honest open and considered strategies for Iraq and the War on Terror. They will not substitute political sound bites for strategy. In pursuing the War on Terror, they will also not emasculate the honest work product of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department for political power.
Posted by: cognitorex on October 27, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
But why have we been left out of the loop?
Posted by: Schaife Trolls on October 27, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK
The perfect analogy for the difference between Democrats and Republicans on national defense is the difference between John Wayne (Major York) and Henry Fonda (Lt. Colonel Thursday) in the Movie Fort Apache. Major York recognizes a situation fraught with difficulty and recommends trying diplomacy before fighting. But Thursday is an arrogant, bigoted fool who cannot imagine being wrong even though he knows little about his enemy and leads this troops to disaster.
If you havent seen the movie you can read a summary at [http://www.friesian.com/apache.htm]
Posted by: Tom on October 27, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
As this Daily Show clip says, "What Asshole said stay the course?!...everything you've heard...for the last two years is wrong."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQnQwIF8-ws&eurl=
Posted by: lutton on October 27, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK
Fort Apache - How apt.
Lt Col Thursday was trying to restore his reputation and achieve glory and led his troops with abandon into a boxcanyon.
Lt Bush is trying to overcome his failure to take the drug testing physical and achieve glory from his Savior, restore his military leadership and has led this country into a boxcanyon where whirlwinds swirl.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 27, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK
Your feudal country If Conservatives had their Way.
https://home.comcast.net/~professorplum/watch020.html
The only thing I would add to this list is the imprisoning of the rightwing's political enemies.
If they keep control of government you know it's coming.
Posted by: The Watch on October 27, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK
And that would cause everyone's brain to explode.
This statement assumes a brain exists in the conservative head in question.
I ask the court for evidence for this assumption.
Posted by: craigie on October 27, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK
Well, its hard to believe that subversive treasonous traitors who want to protect the terrorists' civil rights more than American lives would be serious about national security, right?
Posted by: The Fool on October 27, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK
Woohoo! We're fucked and the dems were the ones to notice we were going to be fucked before we were fucked. What will the democrats win. Diane, show us what's behind door number two.
Posted by: American Buzzard on October 27, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK
I am among the people who correctly predicted what would happen in Iraq, and worldwide, as a result of this ill-planned and ill-fated invasion.
The Democrats are only barely marginally better than the Republicans here. Many of them voted to authorize Bush to use force in 02, and I believe that most of those who so voted now regret their votes. The excuse that "everyone" believed that Saddam had huge amounts of WMDs is seriously lame, since I and many other just plain citizens, knew that couldn't be true. We just read various national and international sources on that subject, nothing more. No access to "classified" info. Our congress people who let themselves be fooled by the Bush maladministration should hang their heads in shame, and should publicly apologize.
BUT, had the Democrats been in power, they would NOT have gone into Iraq. They would not have stovepiped the intelligence as Cheney did. So we would not be in this situation, trying to look for the "best" solution, among choices, none good, all potentially disastrous. Sanctions were far from perfect, but does anyone seriously claim that they were worse than what we are facing now?
To those of you who are STILL accusing us liberals of not being "serious", and who DARE to lecture us on foreign policy, you have your nerve. WE were right. YOU were wrong. I think our ideas deserve more credence. I cannot believe that we continue to have discussions about who is more "serious".
I will make a later post in which I, as a plain old citizen, suggest a couple of ideas which might have better success than what is happening now. Not perfect, but maybe better.
Posted by: Wolfdaughter on October 27, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK
Oh my gosh, Dan Drezner is a real ditz.
First of all he says "No matter how you sliced it, the Republicans held the upper hand."
Ah, well until poll numbers indicated otherwise.
This talk about how Bush was far right never really was true, not anymore that FOX News is real news, but if Ditzy Drezner likes sucking down the fake, fax lies this administrations tells, well then who are we to try and educate Drezner about what is an imitation and what is real.
The days are closing in conservatives/Republicans, will try in earnest to distance themselves from anything whatsoever to do the Bush/Cheney administation.
Bush is just trying to woe voters back into the fold before he gets his lying ass investigated. Gee Mr. Drezner, just why is Bush acting so desperate and pulling this make believe flip-flop?
I only wish the Dems would win back the senate so Carl Levin can re-convene another investigation on matter of peak oil.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 27, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
So Airman Flip Flop isn't the stubborn leader we thought he was.
Posted by: Ray Waldren on October 27, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK
Where are all the trolls? Did the RNC pull funding from them along with OH?
Posted by: Disputo on October 27, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK
"The Democrats are only barely marginally better than the Republicans here. Many of them voted to authorize Bush to use force in 02..."
Nope, that is a false charachterization of the facts.
In the senate 29 democrats voted for the authorization and 21 against while 49 republicans voted for it and 1 against.
In the house the final total was 296-133 with
126 democrats and 6 republicans voting against it.
Republicans voted 95% or more in both houses of congress for whatever wars bush might decide to start, senate democrats were just 58% for it, while and house democrats had a solid majority against it.
Democrats were overwhelmingly more correct than republicans in judging whether it was wise to give Bush the keys to the military.
Posted by: jefff on October 27, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK
So Airman Flip Flop isn't the stubborn leader we thought he was.
That made me wince - I'm married to a retired USAF officer. That he can be placed in the same category (outide the "white" "male" and baby-boomer" labels, anyway) as my husband is appalling to me.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
I don't get you people: how can you be so naive, such fools? The democrats weren't right: any clear headed, reasonable, well informed person knew at least a year ago that Iraq was fucked and in need of a serious rethink - and that includes many in the GOP, if not the moron in chief himself. This is why McCain kept asking for more troops even though he knew that was never gonna happen - he's setting up his 2008 spin for what went wrong in Iraq and how in part to blame it on liberals. This has all been nothing more than a big shell game - and far from being right, the democrats fell for it hook, line and etc. [Well, Hillary didn't, and Gore was very careful with the words he chose - but all you other idiots did!]
The only reason things are tracking so well for Dems [and you people need to face facts - it should be tracking much better than it is] is because no amount of GOP conniving can overcome the huge stink rising from the great turd Dubbya dropped in Iraq. If democrats had played it right, as you fools inexplicably seem to want to congratulate yourselves for doing, most americans wouldn't be moving like plodding idiot cows at close of day over to 'their position' as Drezner insinuates - they'd be calling for Bush's head on a plate, or at least be laughing him outta town.
Posted by: saintsimon on October 28, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK
Give me a break, the Republicans appear the only party that actually DEMONSTRATED their weakness on national defense, national security and terrorism the very moment the planes hit the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001.
They even have some liberals cowed and fooled.
Posted by: www.dmocrats.org on October 28, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK