Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 25, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

LETTING RUDY WIN....Yesterday Rudy Giuliani said the country would be safer if it elects a Republican in 2008 — especially if that Republican is him:

"If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense....I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," Giuliani continued. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."

He added: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

My reaction: Yawn. Of course Rudy thinks the country would be safer with a Republican in charge. Presumably he also thinks the economy will do better, crime will come down, and everyone will have whiter teeth. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a Republican.

So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond? With the usual whining? Or with something smart? Greg Sargent has today's responses from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over at his site and the verdict is in: more whining. Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low blah blah blah." Clinton: "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11 yada yada yada."

Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties. And while it's true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it's not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do?

Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake. Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight.

UPDATE: This response from the DNC isn't what I was after, but at least it's a decent attack on Giuliani. That's a start, I guess.

Kevin Drum 11:51 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (164)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wouldn't it just be easier to paint Rudy as "Four More Years" of Bush policies?
Giuliani explained what Democrats would change about Bush's unpopular ideas. Democrats should turn it around on him -- "Giuliani thinks Bush has done a bang up job. If you agree, vote for him! If you want change, vote for me!"

Posted by: Adam on April 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy's own city's response was inadequate on 9/11 due to poor/no communication between police and firefighters.

He can't handle one city's defense and response, and he thinks he can handle the whole country? LOL

Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

So if we don't elect Guiliani or a Republican, we're in danger of more attacks like the one that happened in NYC when Giuliani was mayor and a Republican was president?

Makes sense to me!

Posted by: gogiggs on April 25, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Um, Kevin, isn't it a little early for Democratic presidential candidates to take on GOP'ers?

I mean, no one besides the inside-the-beltwayers really pay that much attention to the candidates at this point. And all these people are trying to get the primary voters, that is, the wired to somewhat-wired electorate, on their side.

This is just red-meat to republican voters. Why should they expend energy, and more importantly, strategy and tactics, attacking the oppo who you don't even know yet.

Posted by: mikey on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

You wonder which if any of the Democratic candidates will have the stones to point out that 9/11 happened under a Republican administration and Republican congress. For six years now, people have been loath to mention that.

Somehow, if 9/11 had happened under a Gore administration, I don't think Giuliani or John McCain would be reluctant to make hay out of that, much less the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

A few short sentences?
How about a joke and a punchline:

Joke:

We could have paid for Social Security indefinitely plus complete National Health Care for all US Citizens for over 40 years with the money already spent on the Iraq.

Punchline:

Would you feel safer knowing you have Social Security AND health insurance for the rest of your life?

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

"This is just red-meat to republican voters. Why should THEY expend energy, and more importantly, strategy and tactics, attacking the oppo who you don't even know yet."

THEY being the democrats...sorry for that.

Posted by: mikey on April 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

How about this...."With a Democrat as president, we will....

1)Redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda is actually based.
2)Protect American citizens from unlawful invasions of their privacy by their government
3)Actually take steps to protect our ports, bridges, chemical plants, and nuclear reactors

What most Americans don't realize is how little the Republicans have actually done to protect our infrastructure. You can't take a bottle of water on an airplane anymore, but it still isn't too difficult for a terrorist to blow up a bridge, attack a nuclear reactor or chemical plant, or smuggle a weapon in through our ports.

Posted by: mfw13 on April 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil rights. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead

Democrats haven't done this because they know Giuliani is right. Giuliani knows we can't be shortsighted on Iraq. We have to think about what would happen in the long term if we order our troops to cut and run. Harry Reid's defeatest statement that America has already lost hurts the morale of our troops. Leaving Iraq could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as Iran becomes emboldened in our withdrawal. By not fighting the terrorists on foreign soil, the terrorists will surely respond by following us home.

Posted by: Al on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jon Stewart showed how to do it last night when facing John McCain. Just talk straight --

I donot think any of the current Democratic candidates has either the personal verbal skills or more importantly, the desire to aggressively take on the Republicans. They are whinny because they are uncertain of themselves and because they half believe the Republican point of view themselves.

Posted by: Elie on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do?

They can't tell us because they have no answers on national security.

It's all very well to say you're against Gitmo and the war in Iraq, but what are you going to put in its place?

Posted by: Al on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Clinton isn't well positioned to do this, given, fairly or not, that she will be linked to her husband's policies. When American embassies were attacked by Al Queda, Bill Clinton's response was to take what the Central Command CINC, Anthony Zinni (a severe critic of GWB, btw), who oversaw the operation, called a "one in a million shot", in the form of a cruise missile attack.

Obviously, the Democrats likely will have plenty of room to make gains on the Republicans on national security issues in 2008, but Hillary Clinton is the wrong candidate to do it with.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

These days the first appropriate response to most anything uttered by Republicans on Iraq and Terrorism is a David Letterman style spit-take.

Posted by: bryrock on April 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Now you're sounding like Broder, Kevin; this is the 'everything is good for Republicans' meme that's speaking through you.

If the Democrats answered substantively, you would just say they were being 'defensive' or 'reacting' or 'playing me-too politics'.

Obama and HRC had a choice here in what is, really, a silly little soundbite flareup: attack the substance or attack the frame. They chose to attack the frame, and at the same time express contempt for Giuliani - and it is beneath contempt, what he's suggesting, right? What's wrong with their approach?

Posted by: lampwick on April 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

It's all very well to say you're against Gitmo and the war in Iraq, but what are you going to put in its place?

Nothing, because Gitmo and Iraq have both been criminal failures. Duh.

Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin. A good response would have started with, "We're supposed to take national security advice from the idiot who kept the NYC emergency center in the WTC complex against all advice?"

Democrats, sigh, They're getting a little better (Harry Reid's been pretty good lately) but they still have a long way to go...

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

What did Edwards say? Or has he been written off already?

Posted by: Vincent on April 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Exactly, Kevin. The line of attack itself is not only perfectly legitmate for any candidate to make -- if any candidate cannot make it, he/she shouldn't be running. LBJ certainly made the case that that the country would be a lot less safe if it turned to Goldwater in 1964.

Posted by: Jasper on April 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Better yet, why not just point out that the Republicans have had six years to make us safer and what have they done?

Everyone who speaks for the Democratic Party should be hammering Rudy and his ilk with questions like these:


Did letting Osama Bin Laden get away make us safer?

Did making Iran stronger make us safer?

Did wearing out our armed forces make us safer?

Did getting us bogged down in a quagmire in the Middle East make us safer?

Did squandering the worldwide goodwill bestowed on us after 9/11 make us safer?

Did spending close to a trillion dollars (billions of it to enrich Dick Cheney's old company) make us safer?

Did making airline passengers take off their shoes and throw out their coffee and sodas—while doing absolutely nothing to safeguard our ports, power plants, and chemical plants—make us safer?

Did not finding out who sent anthrax through the mail make us safer?


I (and you) could go on. So I'll close with a couple of questions for Roody himself:


Did situating the city's emergency command center in the World Trade Center make New York safer?

Did failing to to make sure they had adequate communications equipment make New York firemen and policemen safer?

Did exposing rescue workers to toxic substances on the WTC site make them safer?


It's not a question of who can promise to protect Americans; it's a matter of reminding people who has repeatedly and miserably failed to do so—again and again and again.


Posted by: Zak44 on April 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't think Obama's answer was whining.

We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe.

I think Obama and the others have plenty of time to spell out a program and it's just way to early to get into it.

Posted by: tomeck on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Look -- the Dems were in power, and 9/11 happened.

The Dems were in power and a record surplus went to record deficit.

Oh, wait.

Is there really no Dem with half a brain??

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

WTF, Kevin!? How about, you know, reading what the Dems actually said?

Barack Obama: “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.”


Hillary Clinton: "There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change.

"One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism – it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight. The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer and bring Democrats and Republicans together around this common mission of protecting our nation. That is exactly what has to be done and what I am ready to do."

Posted by: cazart on April 25, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta agree with Kevin this one time.

As Bartcop has been saying for about ten years, "How can the Democrats protect the American people when they can't even protect themselves?" Democrats seem to have trouble recognizing hostile communication interactions when the only good response is to come back twice as hard and smash the other guy in the mouth.

I spent a lot of time going through the 9/11 report when it came out, and in that report Bush's weaknesses on counter-terrorism stand out like a sore thumb. Someone even made a special trip to visit him in Texas during his vacation, and Bush just made a smartass comment to the guy. (There's a lot more). Several of Bush's counterterrorism people quit and supported Kerry in 2004.

Posted by: John Emerson on April 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah I'm with cazart.
Overall the response was good. And it will only get better as we move to 11/08. There is too much good material to use on these republican candidates.

Posted by: Northern Observer on April 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, HRC made a stab at a more substantive answer, talking about lack of port security, etc. under Bush. But I agree that the Dems need to have a good strong postive narrative on this. Maybe Rudy has done them a favor by pushing them to get their act together on it.

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on April 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "My reaction: Yawn."

Really? Mine was "Fuck you."

Anyone who supports this malevolent and corrupt one-trick pony is truly a fuckin' moron.

Christ, it's not even 7:00 a.m. HST, and already the Republicans have me cursing them. Our country Hasn't suffered a bigger collective bunch of political fools since the secession-minded Dixiecrats led their states out of the Union and thus precipitated the Civil War.

Oh, and excuse me -- but where did the Dixiecrats go in the 1960s and '70s, after the Democratic Party consciously embraced the Civil Rights movement?

I rest my case.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Americans want to know how our candidates will make America safer. Rudy is right about one thing. We won't be safer on defense. The problem is by allowing Rudy to define the offense in terms of stupid foreign policy and diminished civil liberties, you have been put permanently on defense.

The Democrats have voluntarily left the security field to Rudy. I guess he gets the security vote. Bad response Barak. Worse response Hillary.

We can't stand four more years of this nonsense. Give me a Democratic andidate with both brains and courage (I was going to say balls, but I don't want anybody to think I believe a woman can't be president.)

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

How about: We have some actual EVIDENCE of Rudy Guiliani's views on making this country safer: Appointing his crony Bernard Kerick to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted by: Subliminability on April 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

McCain took a jab at Rudy today that's far better than anything in Obama's or HRC's responses: "When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency."

If McCain knows how to do this, why don't our candidates?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

And by the way- yes to those who said that another prime topic in a good response would have been Kerick.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Dems have spent the last six years attacking Bush and the Republicans. They're very good at these attacks. The attacks allowed the Dems to take over Congress. By attacking Guiliani, the Dems are playing to their strength,

Meanwhile, the Dems avoiding taking a positive stand on what to do in Iraq (except for Murtha and the loony left, who just want to pull out.)

Hillary and Obama can't say what they would do to fight the war on terror for two reasons:

1. They don't know what they would do.

2. Any sensible proposal including aggressive action would be anathema to the left-wing half of the Democratic Party.

A natural proposal for Dems would be to put more US troops in Afghanistan, since things aren't going well there. Yet, Pelosi and Reid's Iraq withdrawal proposals do not address moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Republicans will seek to frame the 2008 election as a battle between a party that's focused on attacking America's enemies (although they're not always good at it) versus a party that is focused on attacking the other party (which they're very good at.)

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 25, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you fell for the "Dems whine more" meme - anyone who listens to right wing radio knows it is one long whine.

Posted by: Robert on April 25, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The reason, Steve..that McCain is being that specific is because he is appealing to the GOP base who will be voting for him or Guiliani. His primary base will response to that answer.

Barack and Hilliary's answer worked for their base in the primary. The Dems that vote in the primary are focused on CHANGE.

Hillary and Barack have plenty of time to pander to the general electorate, when and if one of them become the nominee.

Posted by: elrapierwit on April 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Aside from the fact that Obama and Clinton did say they would defend America, Kevin's criticism begs the question that Rudy's rhetoric is at all persuasive. A majority of Americans agree that we should withdraw from Iraq. Americans oppose government monitoring of phone calls and emails.

It's hardly a given that a majority of Americans think think changes on these things is bad.

Instead, I think Americans cock their heads at Rudy's comments, the kind of out-of-touch statement that sounds too much like a president who thinks Iraq is getting better and that Gonzales did well last week.

Posted by: Tx Bubba on April 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin might consider giving Cazart guest-blogging duties as a gesture of humility. He can spend the day not doing his job. It's a win-win.

Posted by: sniflheim on April 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Obama and Clinton should have responded to Guiliani's scare tactics with,

"So Rudy wants to make America safe by removing our freedoms with warrentless phone taps, military tribunals behind closed door, and an unchecked presidency.

Tell me Rudy, why are you caving into the terrorists?"

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 25, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Rudy that the US will be safer with a GOP as Pres.

When a Dem wins in 2008, the GOP brownshirts will deploy back to their militia cells and begin planning for the next series of wingnut terrorist attacks on US soil, likely to dwarf both OKC and 9/11, and with the DoJ and other Fed depts, sucked dry of competence by the GWB admin, unable to prevent it.

Posted by: Disputo on April 25, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with cazart. In particular:

Obama: I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe.

Clinton: this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world...

The response could have been stronger, of course; if I were a Dem candidate (especially one who hadn't yet spoken) I'd be cutting and pasting wildly from some of the comments above. But both Clinton and Obama listed some things that they would do.

Posted by: Lucia on April 25, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Aside from the fact that Obama and Clinton did say they would defend America

How? By surrendering to our allies and referring back to the legacy of Bill Clinton?

The only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein. Had he not been asleep at the switch, the Iraq war need not have happened.

And what will Hillary do when confronted with a problem? She'll run crying to Ambassador Bill, who will no doubt be running around, sans pants, trying to triangulate anything and everything.

Vote for Rudy or be consumed by the dust and fire of a massive terror attack, people. Vote for Rudy or things will dissolve into screaming and gunfire.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

This is just another reminder that Obama, for all his potential, is an unbelievable mediocre candidate. A man blessed with so much promise and charisma has not once ever said anything remotely interesting to me or taken a stance that I thought was risky.

His modus operandi is to say the inspiring things that everyone "thinks" a politician should say; he simply says them more convincingly. Perhaps, however, this is the optimal election-winning strategy.

Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I gotta be with cazart too, Kevin. In general, I think you're right, but Obama in particular does go on to say exactly what needs to be said: the Republicans have NOT made us safer, and we need to fight this war smarter. I don't think those answers were nearly as bad as you said they were.

Posted by: Peter A on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

"We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance,interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."

Great! When can we start?


Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

How bout all those dead firemen who continued on up the towers even though the cops were shouting into their radios that they needed to get out - except the firemen radios were on another frequency, they didn't hear the warnings, and died as a result.

Whoopsie.

Point out that the incompatible systems came from a Guiliani cronie.

Point out as well that he put the command center in the WTC - the most likely target of international terrorism.

Whoopsie.

Oops. Said that already.

Anyone who takes this fucker serious on national security is in need of serious psychotropic meds.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 25, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance,interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.

We will return America to something we recognize, you mean?

Fabulous! Sign me up!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Many of the good commenters here at Political Animal could come up with decent rebuttals to the abusive cop's bullshit, and describe how Democrats would do a much better job of national security than Republicans, but it is telling that the front runners for the Democratic nomination do not. What that means exactly I can only guess, but it definitely hurts the chances of a Democrat being elected president. Like Kerry, Clinton and Obama lack the will or language to communicate a strong national security strategy that fits their humanism and appeals to the national machismo character. Anti-war and anti-Bush activists should be worried.

Posted by: Brojo on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who takes this [redacted] serious on national security is in need of serious psychotropic meds.

Come now, you're being silly.

Vote for Rudy or a terrorist will burn down the mall on the good side of town.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Then do it right now Kevin. You do it. Glass houses and stuff.

Posted by: MNPundit on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

You can prevent people from taking liquids onto planes. You can construct elaborate "no fly lists" containing everyone who wrote a letter to the editor in support of Democrats, and you can declare that torture is okay and that we should monitor everyone phone calls without a warrant because it's "necessary to keep us safe."

The question in my mind is when we are going to decide that these are no longer necessary? Even on the most basic level, who on earth is going to stand up and declare that we should be allowed to bring full-sized tubes of toothpaste in our carryon luggage? Given that no one is going to do that, I have a hard time believing that anyone, particularly republicans, are going to move us back to sanity on the other issues. The Republicans are drunk on their newfound power, and like a drunk, they need to be cut off.

Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

AMEN KEVIN. Will these candidates listen please?? Whining does not work! If they zing you, you zing back. America doesn't want a President who complains of 'unfair treatment' every time someone lands a moderately low blow. They want someone who can fight back, dirty if need be.

Posted by: Shag on April 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Many of the good commenters here at Political Animal could come up with decent rebuttals to the abusive cop's bullshit, and describe how Democrats would do a much better job of national security than Republicans, but it is telling that the front runners for the Democratic nomination do not.

Yes, and it would sound something like...

...ooo, Mr. Terrorist, I respect your feelings and I hope you'll realize that because America is guilty of war crimes and oppression against you that you'll hold off killing thousands of our people while we pay you reparations and promise to incarcerate all of the people who work hard and make money...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Democratic candidates could say that they will make America safer by "going on offense" against the real threats to American security:

Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World
The Oxford Research Group
April 11, 2007

Is international terrorism really the single greatest threat to world security?

Since the 9/11 attacks, many Western governments assume terrorism to be the greatest threat we face. In response, their dangerous policies attempt to maintain control and keep the status quo by using overwhelming military force. This important book shows why this approach has been such a failure, and how it distracts us from other, much greater, threats:

  • Climate change
  • Competition over resources
  • Marginalisation of the majority world
  • Global militarisation
Beyond Terror concludes that not only are the four trends identified still the greatest threats to world security, but that the ongoing "war on terror" and, in particular, the war in Iraq are actually increasing, rather than decreasing, the likelihood of future terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11.

The study argues that even when judged by its own standards the current US/UK-led approach to global security and the "war on terror" is clearly failing. As evidence of this, the authors – Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda – highlight that:

  • Support for political Islam is increasing worldwide.
  • The number of significant terrorist attacks is on the rise.
  • Peace and democracy are elusive in the Middle East.
  • The price of oil remains volatile and increases with every new crisis.
  • Iraq is in a state of bloody chaos nearing civil war.
  • The Taliban is a re-emerging force in Afghanistan.
  • Iran, Syria and North Korea are increasingly emboldened.
  • US strategic influence is waning, especially in Africa and the Middle East.
  • The United States is increasingly viewed as the greatest threat to world peace.

This failing is because the current approach – what the authors refer to as the "control paradigm" – is premised on an attempt to maintain the status quo through military means and "keeping the lid on" insecurity without addressing the root causes.

Unless urgent, coordinated action is taken in the next 5-10 years on all these issues it will be almost impossible to avoid the earth becoming a highly unstable place by the middle years of this century. Beyond Terror offers an alternative path for politicians, journalists and concerned citizens alike.

However, with the exception of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democratic candidates are unlikely to raise these issues, because most of them are only slightly less beholden to the military-industrial complex and its half-trillion-dollar per year gluttony than the Republicans.

Posted by: Never Happen on April 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin appears to be projecting his own faults onto Obama, presumably because Obama got the Iraq war right, and Kevin didn't.

Posted by: Disputo on April 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think Mr. Drum is spot-on, and I'm a little dismayed to see how many people in this thread disagree with him, and how. Guiliani is a treasure trove of fuck-ups and slime -- any Dem who deigns to respond to his remarks, even if he's running for nothing higher than assistant alderman, ought to be able to take the specifics of Guiliani's record and construct a damning litany of how Republican scumbuggery turns out. Then you can bring up the laundry list of How We'll Do Better. Clinton and Obama would have been better off ignoring Guiliani's remarks altogether, if they couldn't offer anything better than pablum about how "America is united" and "America is ready for a change". Vacuous horseshit that fools nobody.

Posted by: sglover on April 25, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

However, with the exception of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democratic candidates are unlikely to raise these issues, because most of them are only slightly less beholden to the military-industrial complex and its half-trillion-dollar per year gluttony than the Republicans.

It's true--Kucinich really is the best you have. I hope he runs the country just like he ran Cleveland.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin is very persuasive on the politics. But I think the problem is that the dems do not have a real strong argument on how they would make us safer. The notion of shifting our focus to Afghanistan, a talking point used by dems and even stated in this thread, is silly and I doubt that any of the dems honestly believe that is the answer - it is just a specious way to try not to look weak while advocating withdrawal from Iraq. The battle with Al Qaeda is in Iraq and there currently is little threat to us in Afghanistan. And of course, if the terrorists succeed in running us out of Iraq, it would provide a playbook for running us out of Afghanistan eventually and anywhere else.

In 2004, the dems whined when Cheney suggested we would be safer with Bush. It is their instinct to say that argument is unfair or questions their patriotism; I think because they fear the debate. I agree with Kevin. Let's bring on the debate about which candidate for president will keep us safer. If the dems demonstrate they can keep us safer, fine with me. But the stuff they said yesterday is not at all persuasive.

Posted by: brian on April 25, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, I've always said that investment bankers are unintellectual and have no moral grounding. You are proof that wannabe investment bankers are even less intellectually capable and have even less moral capacity. And that's really something. Though it dovetails nicely with the Republican thing.

Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein.

BWAHAHAHA! Yeah, tell us how your merry band of chickenhawks have uncovered those WMD buried in the sand.

Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

A vote for John McCain is a vote for a third term for George W. Bush.

The folks who like Bush, will love McCain.

Posted by: TruthTeller on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, I've always said that investment bankers are unintellectual and have no moral grounding.

No, but a modest fortune and a talent for exploiting the weaknesses of others while skirting the law is a skill I happen to have. And could you cite where you've "always said that?" I think you're lying and I don't appreciate having you claim things that simply are not true, sir. I don't appreciate it and I won't countenance it.

You are proof that wannabe investment bankers are even less intellectually capable and have even less moral capacity. And that's really something. Though it dovetails nicely with the Republican thing.

There's nothing "wannabe" about me. Just because you put on a doily and your grandma's underpants because you "wannabe" like Madonna or Melissa Etheridge, don't come crying to those of us who can think for themselves.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Arguably the responses are not as ferocious as many would prefer. But to call the responses "whining" is ridiculous.

Obama's response in particular was to incorporate his criticism of Guiliani into Obama's broader theme of "a new kind of politics." Kevin might not be moved by that theme, but that is what Obama is about. Obama's argument wasn't about policy so much as it was about candidacy: comparing the type of person he is to the type of person Rudy is.

A double for Obama. A swing and a miss for Mister Drum.

Posted by: David on April 25, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
There's nothing "wannabe" about me.
True- you're an actual troll, not a wannabe one. Though that may be a rather fine distinction. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, the other fun thing is that I know when I mock you, I'll get a reply. :)

And yeah, "wannabe." Unless it turns out that everyone on the internet really is a self-made millionaire veteran of the special forces who dropped out of college because they realized they knew more than the professors.

But as I said, yeah, the pathetic bleating and the deluded belief in the profundity of your immoral, invalid opinions does dovetail well with the Republican thing you so fanatically espouse.

Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, the other fun thing is that I know when I mock you, I'll get a reply. :)

An emoticon, sir? You must be related to this Bob fellow who used to soil himself around here.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, yes, because emoticons are a rarely-used element on online writing taken up by some guy name Bob.

You also have some odd scatalogical fixations. You should do something about that. Or pay someone to deal with it, so you stop taking up your anxieties here.

Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

who let Grandpa Norman out of the home?

Posted by: dent on April 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is orchestrating militants' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior commander of Afghan Islamist group Taliban said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday.

Bin Laden has not made any video statements for many months raising speculation that he might have died.

"He is drawing plans in Iraq and Afghanistan ... Praise God he is alive," Mullah Dadullah told Al Jazeera television. "Praise God that the Democrats have emboldened him with their defeatism and given him enormous strength that he will use to smite his enemies and reward the Democrats who kiss his hand in fealty."

In September, a French newspaper quoted French foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi intelligence were convinced bin Laden had died of typhoid in Pakistan in August. An emergency treatment for typhoid was delivered to an undisclosed location in Pakistan that coincided with a visit from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is not known whether she delivered the medicine used to treat typhoid directly to bin Laden.

Dadullah said bin Laden ordered the attack on February 27 at the U.S. Bagram base during a visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan.

"Do you remember the martyrdom operation called Operation Pretty Blinky Eyes inside the Bagram base which targeted a senior American official ... this operation was the result of blessed plans put by him," Dadullah said. Jazeera said the U.S. official Dadullah was referring to was Cheney.

I'd vote for Rudy if I were you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you are more or less right on this call. And Dems need to grasp that the nomination at this point is Rudy's to lose, and he will crush Hillary if she is the nominee. Rudy has the necessary nastiness that is so appealing to Republicans. I like Obama, but I know: An awful lot of white people, regardless of what they say to the pollsters, will go in the voting booth and vote for the white guy. (Just ask Tom Bradley or Carl McCall.)

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, vote for a Republicon who spends another eight years not getting bin Laden. LOL

Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK
Mrs. Clinton isn't well positioned to do this…Will Allen at 12:32 PM
Since the Clinton policies involved taking every precaution available and counter-attacking, that would be an excellent position to take. The Republican position, ignore warnings, divert resources for no valid reason, and undertake counterproductive actions should be a lesson to all.
blah blah… ex-lax at 1:01 PM
Your party excels at their smear&lie attacks on Democrats, but when it comes to attacking America's enemies, they prefer to let them go in order to use them for their political agendas.
….The only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein……Norman Rogers at 1:16 PM
In case you haven't yet heard, Saddam was disarmed while Clinton was president. But of course, any reason to have a true transvestite in the White House would be a good thing to his fans.
….Bwah hah h… Norman Rogers at 1:32 PM
Either someone fell off the wagon again, or the hoot of the loon is echoing Giuliani. Posted by: Mike on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

cazart is technically right, but Kevin's point is that the reponse should be short, succint and memorable.

I don't have it quite figured it out yet, but two 10 word senetences that managed to bring in Rudy's three wives, his dysfunctional relationship with his adult son, his lack of preparation prior to 9/11, the firemen's grievances against him, and his grandstanding would have been enough to respond.

Democratic leaders' problem is that they are too verbose, congenitally unable to go for the kill, and without humor.

Posted by: gregor on April 25, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

If you were me you'd be far too intelligent for that.

And even if someone really hadn't yet caught on to the Rethug proapganda scam that is the GWOT*, why on earth would they want an incompetent tinpot Mussolini like Rudy, with zero knowledge of national security and a "brilliant" command center in WTC / cops and firemen with different radios / Kerik track record, to wage it?

*In actuality terrorism is a global LAW ENFORCEMENT problem requiring close COOPERATION with ALLIES. Not playing cowboys and indians with actual people's lives.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Every once in awhile, Hillary Clinton simply runs off the track.

For example, her recent awful attempt at dialect in quoting words from a religious song popular in Negro churches; and lately her clumsy attempt to link her campaign to that of Harriet Tubman.

In both instances, she could have made her point with much more finesse.

For example, "I would like to remind you of the words of a well-loved song that long has been an inspiration to me as well as to many others . . ." etc. (no dialect).

And, "All of us in this campaign as well as all Americans should take courage and direction from the struggle of individuals such as Harriet Tubman, who . . ."

Would something like that have been so hard?

I really think that Mrs. Clinton is being let down by someone with authority in her campaign, someone who should know better but obviously does not and I hope that she and those closest to her take heed of the situation. This is not a personal matter with Mrs. Clinton, whose heart is in the right place; this is a campaign matter that can and should be corrected sooner rather than later.

Mrs. Clinton is the best choice Democrats have for not only winning the White House in 2008 but for carrying the Congress as well.

Let's hope that she manages to stay on track in the future.

Posted by: billboard on April 25, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "By not fighting the terrorists on foreign soil, the terrorists will surely respond by following us home."

They are not puppies, dimwit. They can "follow" us anytime they want, army or no army. Good thing we were in Iraq on 9/11, right?

Meanwhile, have you signed up yet, you hypocritical sack of talking points?

Posted by: Kenji on April 25, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
Mrs. Clinton is the best choice Democrats have for not only winning the White House in 2008 but for carrying the Congress as well.
(Italics mine.) You misspelled "hands-down worst". Hope this helps. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

What did Edwards say? Or has he been written off already?

He's been written off. I think it was something important...like his hair.

Posted by: ckelly on April 25, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Clinton is the best choice Democrats have for not only winning the White House in 2008 but for carrying the Congress as well.

I get the giggles and fall down in a heap when I read things like that. The American people are not going to hand over the presidency to an inveterate nag, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

So far on this thread there has not been a single post by a Democrat suggesting something the country should do to remain on offense (using Rudy's metaphor). No ideas for more effective ways to attack insurgents in Iraq, better ways to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, ways to prevent Iran and NK from developing nuclear arsenals, etc.

There have been some clever suggestions about how to attack Rudy and other Republicans. Attacking the other party seems to be what you folks are good at and all that you're interested in.

P.S. when the US eventually prevails in Iraq, I predict that those who now criticize Bush for getting into an unwinnable war will then criticize him for taking so long to win it.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Memo to "ex-liberal" and everyone's favorite (not) faux-moderate concern troll, brian: You dweebs who still support the manifestly incompetent Bush Administration have no credibility at all -- none -- to opine on your imagined Democratic security shortcomings.

Posted by: Gregory on April 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

decades of liberal misrule had brought the City to its knees- crime, grafitti everwhere, welfare payments sky-high, taxes were high, businesses were leaving the city.

All of this was captured in the film Escape From New York, which detailed how Manhattan was turned into a free-fire zone, rendered virtually unliveable, and was deliberately populated with tens of thousands of mentally ill and deranged criminals who were given a mere slap on the wrist from the liberal judges of the day. I lived in New York during the 1980s and I regularly shot my way out of restaurants and buildings and had to wear body armour and carry a first aid kit everywhere I went.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Mhr, Benito Giuliani is highly unpopular in NY these days, which shows what BS your republitroll thesis is. New Yorkers have seen with Bloomberg (one of the last surviving liberal Republicans, who no longer exist outside of NYC)that they can have administrative competence without the tinhorn dictatorship.

I imagine Norman gets the giggles and falls down a lot. Even the best meds have side effects.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

ex, that's because "remaining on offense" is a childish sports-talk metaphor that merely betrays your feeble cognitive powers and disconnection from reality.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, when "counter-attacking" involves ordering a, in the words of Zinni, "one in a million shot", it isn't a counter-attack at all. Now, it may be unfair to stick Mrs. Clinton with the actions of Mr. Clinton, but Presidential Campaigns inevitably are unfair. The Democrats have room to attack Republicans on national security in '08, but revisiting one in a million missile attacks or Les Aspin-led military excusions in Somalia is not the way to do it. The Democrats would be wise to nominate someone else.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 25, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

For example, her recent awful attempt at dialect in quoting words from a religious song popular in Negro churches;

"Negro" churches? Fuck off, concern troll, and take your verbal tells with you.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

That great strategic genius situated his "central command post" on the 27th floor of WTC 7. Hello......

Posted by: downtown on April 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani is highly unpopular in NY these days, which shows what BS your republitroll thesis is.

New Yorkers who care about their city know that Rudy killed off the bad guys, drove the riffraff out, and made the city liveable again. Mayor Bloomberg is merely coasting along on the glory that was Rudy Guiliani.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Patrick Dorismond, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima.....
happend on Rudy's watch. I'm so glad 2:39pm feels Rudy made the city liveable again. Hello.......

Posted by: downtown on April 25, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

But don't you see, downtown- twisted lowlifes like Norman think torturing and murdering brown people is a GOOD thing. (And of course, being brown, they aren't "real" New Yorkers.)

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: When Giuliani was mayor of New York, crime did indeed come down and the economy did improve.

Actually, during that same period conditions improved in cities with liberal mayors, too. Couldn't have had anything to do with increased federal funds for programs like community-based policing under the Clinton administration.

But we won't talk about that, we need Rudy to keep us safe from terrorists armed with squeegees.

Posted by: thersites on April 25, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic response should be very simple, and something along these lines: the Republicans like to talk about how much they hate government. They hate government so much that they hire incompetents to run our country. So wen Americans actually need the government's help, they bumble and stumble.

See, for example, the response to Katrina. Or Giuliani's best buddy Bernie Kerik.

Point out what's wrong with Republican philosophy. Single out something most Americans are aware of (the Bush administration is stocked with incompetents), and then use a few concrete, well-known examples to show the consequences of Republican governance.

Posted by: Ryan on April 25, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, time for another update with Edwards' release:

EDWARDS STATEMENT ON GIULIANI COMMENTS

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the
following statement about Rudy Giuliani's comments that America will be at
greater risk for another terrorist attack if Democrats win the White House
in 2008.

"Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican'
way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows
better. That's not the kind of leadership he offered in the days immediately
after 9/11, and it's not the kind of leadership any American should be
offering now.

"As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican
administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined
the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight
terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a
better plan. That's just one more reason why this election is so
important; we need to elect a Democratic president who will end the disastrous
diversion of the war in Iraq."

Posted by: desmoinesdem on April 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

(And of course, being brown, they aren't "real" New Yorkers.)

Of course they are. Someone has to wash the dishes and open the door for people like myself. They're not the bad people. The bad people are the ones who drive down to Virginia, buy a gunnysack full of handguns, and drive back to New York City and shoot up a bodega or run over a family of five by ghost riding down Park Avenue in a stolen Dinali.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Fearmongering just hasn't been in the Democratic Playbook, but they better add a chapter on it because it seems to work damn well.

How about saying they have a Secret Plan to reinstate the Draft? Cuz otherwise where in the Hell are they going to get the troops they need to keep us in Iraq AND invade Iran?

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
Of course they are. Someone has to wash the dishes and open the door for people like myself.

OK, Norman, I finally get it- you're a parodist and I fell for your schtick. Touche!

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Fearmongering just hasn't been in the Democratic Playbook, but they better add a chapter on it because it seems to work damn well.

Liberals were FOR fearmongering long before they were AGAINST it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Giuliani believes in the civil rights of people who want to continue living."

Unless they are immigrants shot 47 times by the police while reaching for their wallet to get out their identification.

Giuliani and "civil rights" should not be mentioned in the same paragraph.

Dems should suggest that perhaps Giuliani would make us safer by putting a big target on the Homeland Security Department, just like he did when he put NYC emergency response center into the once-already-bombed WTC. Or by putting a hack like Kerik in charge of our safety.

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK
Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard?

Democrats, right now, don't have to convince the American public that it would be better to have a Democrat in the White House: that's not the major challenge any Democratic candidate has to overcome. The major challenge any Democratic candidate has to overcome is the other Democratic candidates.

Convincing the American people that another term of Republican leadership of the executive is even tolerable is a major political challenge Republicans have to overcome.

You aren't politically clueless enough not to understand this, Kevin, so I have to presume that you are, again, just trying to shine up your Liebermanesque "reasonable moderate Democrat" credentials with gratuitous, disingenuous attacks on Democrats.

And, on top of that, you are also clearly deliberatley distorting the responses to fit those attacks. While Obama didn't mention the superiority of "Democrats" as a class (because of the factors I discuss above) he, of course, responded with exactly the better approach to terrorism that he would take is, rebutting directly Giuliani's attack as it applies, at least, to Obama and laying out why he would be better as you claim that he did not:

"I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe."

He does exactly what you praise Giuliani for doing, only makes it personal rather than about party. About what Obama believes needs to be done, rather than about what a generic Democrat would do.

But all you hear is "blah blah blah".

Hillary's response is less specific, but far from "yada yada yada". It hangs Rudy's implication—that the Democratic policies would be bad because they would change direction while his are good because they would keep the same direction as the status quo (he characterizes these respectively as "defense" and "attack", but makes the change/keep distinction quite prominent, too) around his neck by tieing the failures of the current administration that are sharp in people's minds to it.

But you apparently don't hear that, only "yada yada yada".

Maybe, next time you want to attack Democratic candidates for being worse than Republicans, you can actually address the actual content of their statements, rather than calling it "whining" (which it isn't) and replacing the text with gibberish, and omitting, especially, the bits where they do exactly what you are complaining that they don't.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 25, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Question to John Edwards:
What leadership did Rudy offer on 9/11?? Anyone in his position would have done the same thing. He was made to look good by the total cowardice of our national leaders, who, true to form, hid themselves the moment the sh*t hit the fan. True leadership would have commanded that anyone working at ground zero would have to be protected with appropriate gear before engaging in cleanup efforts. Now many of those brave guys are dying because of exposure to harmful materials. The walkie-talkies between the command center and the firefighters were INOPERABLE! The NYPD and the NYFD were unable to communicate with each other. Hundreds of lifes could have been saved had there been a means of communication. I'm not even going to mention the Bernie Kerik slimebaggery of using an apartment at ground zero as a love nest. Yeah, some leadership! Hello....

Posted by: downtown on April 25, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Norman, I finally get it- you're a parodist

Wait--I thought I was Kevin Drum, stirring the pot!

No, wait! I'm a liberal posting as a conservative!

How about this--when you limosine liberals realize that there are people who are at the bottom of the ladder and people who are climbing the ladder and people who sit atop the ladder (as I do, luckily), then you'll realize the greatness and perfection that is America. We are all created equal, and today's dishwasher is a restaurant manager ten years from now and an owner of a chain of restaurants twenty years from now and a retired and seasoned investor thirty years from now, regardless of his skin colour. THAT is America. Conservatives celebrate and reward entrepreneurial talent and ability; liberals want to tax and spend their way to oblivion. The dishwasher of today is better off being a Republican than a lowly Democrat; all he will be rewarded with under a Democrat is with welfare, pity and higher taxes. Under a Republican, the sky is the limit with hard work and a little luck. Perhaps a loan, but let's not bicker about the lending practices of certain predatory lending institutions.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

No, no, no, Norman.

Your quip should have been that liberals were AGAINST fearmongering before they were FOR it.

Sheesh. Get your rants right, at least.

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Get your rants right, at least.

Telling the truth is never a rant; it is an informed comment, sir. Ma'am. Whichever.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards kicked back:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/25/edwards_to_rudy_a_democratic_president_will_actually_keep_america_safer

Posted by: anonymous on April 25, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards response is the best so far.

Don't count him out. It is entirely too early to count anybody out except maybe John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 25, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Rogers: Will Pres. Guiliani promise to stop dressing in drag? Is he capable of that?

I have a sneaking suspicion that a male US president in a dress will not install fear in the hearts and minds of Al Queda, but good luck with your candidate...

Posted by: Doubting Thomas on April 25, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

No, no, NO, Norman.

It's WHATEVER. Double sheesh.

(And, no, I would not characterize what you say as "the truth.")

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Will Pres. Guiliani promise to stop dressing in drag?

Why? Because he looks better in a dress than Hillary does in one of her dowdy pantsuits?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's WHATEVER.

Properly, it is WHOMEVER.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

So Kevin now that Edwards, Reid and Finney from the DNC have shown the way we can expect some hitting back at conservatives from you?

Posted by: klyde on April 25, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

A dress, Mr. Rogers... A DRESS! YOUR MAN WEARS A DRESS!!! Hilary wears pantsuits, big deal! Women of both parties go around wearing ugly pantsuits, (look at Laura Bush for Christ's sake) but REAL MEN DON'T WEAR DRESSES.

And you really think this country or any other country is going to take him seriously?

You really are a spoof, aren't you?

Posted by: Doubting Thomas on April 25, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Women of both parties go around wearing ugly pantsuits

Now, see here. One man's ugly pantsuit is another man's wife caught wearing something practical. You don't have to turn a simple discussion into a hate crime, sir.

When did liberals lose their sense of humour? Rudy in a dress--on Saturday Night Live? Counterculture humour show, SNL? And you're denigrating him for going into the Lion's Den of liberal comedy and besting everyone and getting laughs and being able to laugh at himself?

Humility is something liberals know nothing about, I guess. And as for your assertion that "real men don't wear dresses," well, how sexist is that? How absurdly sexist is your decision to post that bit of nonsense? Boys wear pants, girls wear skirts, anyone who deviates from your rigid interpretation is not a "real man?" I would be willing to bet you that a fair number of cross-dressing liberals are rightly offended by your remarks, sir, and I support their right to wear whatever they want to wear as freely and as openly as they want to wear it. Your hate speech is unfortunate.

But if I had a candidate who wore dowdy pantsuits and nagged me round the clock, I'd lose my g-d sense of humour and I'd start howling at everyone, all unhinged and bitter. Well, not me, personally, but you get the idea.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

When terrorists declared war on the USA in 1993 the Clintonista response was to conduct a homicide investigation against 2 individuals, as if this declaration of war was just another NYC crack killing, or a jealous wife poisoning her husband. When the USS Cole was attacked the Clinton administration did absolutely nothing, which is quite a mind blowing response to say the least.

Posted by: Zipball on April 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards response is the best so far.

Agreed. I liked the jujitsu of accepting /arguendo/ that Guiliani offered leadership after 9/11, and then using it against him.

Posted by: Disputo on April 25, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Zipball. If Clinton had recognized that the OKC bombing was the wingnuts declaring war on the US, and, instead of treating it as a simple criminal matter, had dealt with them accordingly, we would have never gotten into the mess we are today.

Posted by: Disputo on April 25, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

But, then again, with a can like that, Hillary's ONLY option is the dowdy pantsuit.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

You know, there may be a good reason most of Democrats sound like wimps when answering Guiliani. They sound like wimps because they are wimps, Governor Richardson excepted.

There is a lady's lunch dreamy etherial kumbaiya quality about many Democrats when they talk about war and peace. There is not an ally they will stand by nor an enemy they will not reward. They have made it plain that they will bear no burden in defense of much anything and they will send peace advocates to make nice nice to our enemies because they love everybody.

They even turned nasty on Bill Clinton on the occassions when he got rough on our enemies. He could be very tough when necessary.

It is amazing just how strong the copperhead tradition is in the Democratic Party.

This does not reflect on thier patriotism, but it sure makes them look like wimps and amateurs on questions of war and peace.

Posted by: John Kelly on April 25, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

You know, there may be a good reason most of Democrats sound like wimps when answering Guiliani. They sound like wimps because they are wimps, a few like Governor Richardson excepted.

There is a dreamy lady's lunch etherial pastel kumbaiya quality about many Democrats when they talk about war and peace. There is not an ally they will stand by nor an enemy they will not reward. They have made it plain that they will bear no burden in defense of much anything and they will send peace advocates to make nice nice to our enemies because they love everybody.

They even turned nasty on Bill Clinton on the occassions when he got rough on our enemies. He could be very tough when necessary.

It is amazing just how strong the copperhead tradition is in the Democratic Party.

This does not reflect on thier patriotism, but it sure makes them look like wimps and amateurs on questions of war and peace.

Posted by: John Kelly on April 25, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

McCain and Giuliani have been tougher on the Administration's waging of the War than any of the Dems. McCain especially, and for a long time.

Democrats just say they were fooled when they voted for it. Except for Obama who says he was aganist it but waffles around now about timetables.

So what exactly were you expecting here with ...explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

You didn't try, nor have most of the commentators above.

This is why Giuliani will be our next President.

Posted by: Bill Baar on April 25, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Odd a rant, no more a whine about Dems Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, is they whine. It's odd the left only has whine, everything they propose has failed and is failing. Example: let's stab the economy in the heart by raising taxes. Or, let's bring the troops home because we did it in Vietnam and only 3 million people were killed and thousands had to flee. Or, universal healthcare so our medical establishment can be like our public school system. Dems have no new ideas at least none that have a proven track record, except Bill Clinton reforming welfare, that worked but it took a strong GOP to twist his arm.

Posted by: Randy Hall on April 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Is it too much to ask of the ultimate democratic nominee to take a stand on the major issues of the day? And I don't mean the usual bread and circuses.How do they intend to deal with the Islamofascists who threaten our security and the world economy? What about immigration? Though I have a libertarian bent it is obvious to me that unchecked illegal immigration depresses wages at the unskilled and semi-skilled level. Aren't these your constituents? How do you propose to deal with it other than sucking up to another interest group?

Posted by: stuart on April 25, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

[posted from an invalid IP address]

Posted by: Ari on April 25, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

[deleted comment]

Posted by: OTTMANN on April 25, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

[Posted from a fake IP]

Posted by: Ari on April 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton: "There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm."

The trouble is, they're in the White House.

Posted by: Bob M on April 25, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Wait...the Democrats ARE wimps....so what's your point?

The Left does not have national security skills in its DNA. 3 Months of Democrat control of Congress has shown that - we have Brigadier Pelosi and Admiral Reid trying to micromanage the war, while at the same time telling us that the war is lost and that our best hope for combatting terrorism is to run from Iraq and the terrorists. They need to let those of us in the military do our jobs - that's why we signed up.

Posted by: John on April 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

John: If you're in the military you should be court-martialed for trolling a liberal site.

Get your fat ass to Iraq and let an overextended soldier go home to his wife.

Everyone I know in the military is more than polite to strangers---even if they don't agree with them politically.

My guess is you're a Wannabe


Posted by: DoubtingThomas on April 25, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: "Read Fred Siegel's book The Prince of The City, you liberals who dare. Siegel is one of you, a liberal, but he is rational."

Because, me, a non-liberal, doesn't like you liberals, because you are, of course, liberals. And liberals, you see, are what I doesn't like. Hah, argue with that! Liberals!

(liberals)

Posted by: Kenji on April 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

the man really is a piece of scummy shit.

Posted by: jim on April 25, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

[Comment from fake IP deleted]

Posted by: section9 on April 25, 2007 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Congratulations John, these cowardly wimps again show that national security isn't in the Dems' DNA. If you're in the military, congratulations again for serving your country, which will really be in trouble of we elect a cringing wuss like Carter or Clinton and his NSC chief, Sandy Berglar.

Posted by: daveinboca on April 25, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary already told us what she'd do with her vote: rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

The reason other democrats don't tell you what they'd do is that they don't know.

Posted by: seth swirsky on April 25, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Wait till Giuliani hangs Marc Rich around Hillary's neck. Ready for the campaign commercials of the hostages blindfolded in Iran in 1979?

Posted by: Blood Pop on April 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

I see "non-partisan" Will Allen is back regurgitating Republican spin points about how the evil Bill Clinton failed to do anything substantive about bin Laden. His talking point, of course, ignores all of the other actions taken by Clinton. Most notably dedicating intelligence resources to tracking down OBL, which were removed by - wait for it - his successor, George "Will Allen's candidate both before and after failing to take any actions to prevent 9/11" Bush.

Will Allen, you have no credibility to complain about any Democratic candidate's national security credentials. The candidate you voted for twice never demonstrated any facility with the issue - not in his half-assed job as Governor of Texas, not in the debates against Gore, and certainly not in invading a nation with no connection to 9/11 in order to protect us from the guy he let go free in Afghanistan.

Posted by: noel on April 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, for the past 6 years Republicans have been in the White House. In case you haven't noticed, the Economy IS better, crime rates ARE down, and more people ARE choosing to whiten their teeth than before. So, what's your point?

Posted by: Bill on April 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the conventional strategy was to let the candidates remain above the fray, while surrogates do the attack dog work?

Posted by: Ogre Mage on April 25, 2007 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

noel, stop lying. I never said anything about Bill Clinton beinng evil. I said Anthony Zinni called the missile attack he executed at Clinton's orders a "one in a million shot". Why are facts so offensive to you? Is loyalty to Team Blue all that matters?

Here's a newsflash for ya', ya' 'ol pom-pom waver, Noel; Geroge W. Bush ain't runnin' in '08, and neither is his VP.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

I see Will "I voted twice for George W. Bush" Allen is back to demonstrating his lack of facility with the English language and his love of picking at nits while ignoring the substance. He is, of course, too stupid to notice that I didn't quote him as saying "Bill Clinton is evil." So even when picking at nits he fails to have a point.

Was the attack you mentioned the entirety of Bill Clinton's response to Osama bin Laden? As it turns out, no. Which means you aren't interested in presenting "facts," merely selectively attacking Bill Clinton for doing more than George Bush ever did. Which is what one would expect of a Republican apologist.

And it turns out that it doesn't matter that your twice preferred candidate isn't on the ballot, those who would damage our nation in similar fashion - as demonstrated by their near lock-step protection of him (for example, constantly presenting strawman characterizations of Clinton's actions while ignoring Bush's inaction) - are. Not one of the Republican candidates has demonstrated any substantial separation from Bush's failed foreign policies. And if they hope to win the votes of those who previously voted for Bush (the Republican base), they will not.

The fact is, Bush is on the ballot far more than Clinton was in 2000.

Posted by: noel on April 25, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal Democrats have no clue about this war. Just listen to the dumb bastard Harry Reid. This prick should be charged with treason. Waving the white flag has become a trademark of Democrats.

Posted by: jbharris on April 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Great. Exactly right, Kevin. Nothing I'd add at all.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on April 25, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

(My last comment was directed to Kevin Drum).

The Dems aren't wimps. But many in their political leadership do not know how to sell. Which is, I believe, Kevin's point.

All the partisan naysayers can say what they want, but display their ignorance in doing so. The frontlines in war are full of Democrats, and claiming divine powers at interpreting threats is where most Republicans live.

I see no clear distinction between the morals of Osama and those of Cheney/Bush. And Giuliani? A used-car salesman still selling lemons. He doesn't believe Dems would make us less safe. He just likes living large on the public dole and imagines himself worthy to be King Sh*t.

As a cynic and realist, I recognize some Dems are similarly afflicted. But some still entertain notions that they wish to be public servants. That's exceedingly rare in Republican candidates at the national level.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on April 26, 2007 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Let's face it folks, the Republicans and their shills here know that the Bush's War on Iraq is the one thing they can't run from and so all they are left with is fear. Sadly for them, the fact that an American is more likely to be struck by lighting than killed by a terrorist is starting to get through to the American people and the fear the Republicans are selling has long since passed its sell by date.

Posted by: noel on April 26, 2007 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

mhr: "liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal."

A brilliant argument, and so well put. Bravo!

Posted by: Kenji on April 26, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

noel is apparently too stupid to grasp that it is possible to lie by implication. Also, noel apparently is too dumb to grasp that the act of taking one in a million shots is itself very dumb, regardless of other actions. I won't bother explaining why; conversing with the intellect of a turnip is seldom useful.

Shake those pom-poms, noel! Go Team Blue!

Posted by: Will Allen on April 26, 2007 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

John: "They need to let those of us in the military do our jobs - that's why we signed up."

Your job is to repeat empty talking points for the current government? That's not in any of the brochures.

Posted by: Kenji on April 26, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Will, after lying by implication and being caught at it, continues to push his tribe's dishonest portrayal of Clinton and to claim that anyone who sees through his lie of omission is a cheerleader for one side. Given Will's stellar voting record in voting first for a foreign policy naif and then for a foreign policy failure - it's no wonder all he can do is regurgitate Republican talking points.

Will, you foreign policy genius, what percentage chance did the invasion of Iraq have of getting bin Laden? What percentage chance did letting bin Laden get away in Afghanistan have of getting him?

Even if one takes our resident moron, Will Allen, and assumes his dishonest portrayal represented all of the facts that's a one in a million chance more than Bush had. I guess his vote for Bush must not have been based on his ability to protect the United States.

So shake your little fists and keep hammering your tired cheerleader references, we know who is in her little skirt before the big strong man she voted for twice, trying to fluff him up by lying about his predecessor.

Posted by: noel on April 26, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

The Media is giving the democratic candidates so much coverage that the average voter will be sick of hearing about them by election time.

They will cringe just on hearing their names.

Posted by: vampire77666 on April 26, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

The Democrats need no lessons on countering terrorism from someone who cleverly placed his city's emergency incident response center in a complex that had already been attacked by terrorists, or who recommended a mobbed-up and thoroughly incompetent crony for 1)training Iraq's police (he lasted a month with no discernable effect) and 2) DHS secretary.

What should the Democrats do? For a start, lower the US military footprint in Iraq through redeployment/withdrawal; expand US special forces; devote increased resources to try to salvage Afghanistan (if it is not too late); repair the badly damaged ties with allies and other countries; work cooperatively to help countries deal with terrorist threats (through training, technology, logistics, and small units--when requested); target economic, political, inteligence, law enforcement, and military assistance (in cooperation with other countries and the UN)to vulnerable countries; and revive and hammer through the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The above is what is called an integrated strategy: it will take time, money, resources, and expertise. There is a role for the military--and it does not abandon the application of military force--but the military role is not preeminent.

Compare this to the last six years, in which the Bush administration, through spite, fantasy, wishful thinking, and incompetence of an unparallelled scale, has left the US miltarily, morally, and politically weakened; all while increasing the strength of our enemies. Great Job!

Posted by: Tom S on April 26, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Sigh. As a liberal, I'm embarrassed by the pussiness of my party.

Posted by: Angela on April 26, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

noel, how did I omit anything, in reporting how Zinni decibed the missile attack? Again, why are facts so offensive to you? Furthermore, when did I ever state that Iraq had anything to do with Bin Laden? Finally, why are you so ridiculously insecure that you have go crazy if it is mentioned that some Democratic candidates have electoral weaknesses that others lack? What is with this completely irrational attachment to Team Blue?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 26, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

It is up to those who are anti-war to point fingers at those who are pro-war and accuse them of their inhumanity and point out their resemblance to the (phantom) enemies they wish to kill.

Bush is Cho.
Cheney is Saddam.
Kristol is bin Laden.
Rove is Zawahiri.


Posted by: Brojo on April 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Brojo, you forgot that:
KFed is Sir Paul Mccartney
Ford Explorers are Land Rovers

Posted by: courtneyme109 on April 26, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
Will Allen, you have no credibility to complain about any Democratic candidate's national security credentials.

This sentence would have been just fine with only the first six words; the rest is just superfluous limitation.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for giving the Right their talking points...
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/?p=2120

Posted by: Elderta on April 26, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
…New Yorkers who care about their city… Norman Rogers at 2:39 PM
New Yorkers who care about their city are damn happy that nutjob clown Giuliani is the hell outta there.
Why? Because he looks better in a dress than Hillary does … Norman Rogers at 3:45 PM
Does the sight of Rudy in drag make you hunt for the little blue pill?
…makes them look like wimps and amateurs on questions of war and peace. John Kelly at 4:48 PM
Anyone advocating continuous warfare in order to project his 'manhood' has none.
…This is why Giuliani will be our next President. Bill Baar at 4:52 PM
Giuliani was as big a pre-9-11 failure as George W. Bush and wants to continue the Republicans counterproductive war. That's why his campaign is already reduced to Cheneyism.
… Logic and consistency are not liberal values… mhr at 5:42 PM |
Actually they pretty much are along with pragmaticism and improving the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, Republicans like you have no factual basis for your smears and all your policies have been to benefit the few at the expense of the many, especially in war profiteering.
…The Left does not have national security skills in its DNA… John at 7:24 PM
Withdrawal is not 'micromanaging' it's setting a macro goal. The previous government paid very serious attention to the possibility of a terrorist attack and stopped an attempted Millennium bombing. The current government did nothing and ignored all warnings only to attack the wrong country. The previous government won a war in Kosova with no combat loss of life. The current government is expending lives needless because they don't care. Posted by: Mike on April 26, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Diagram a sentence for me, cmdicely. Better yet, create some "inferences" in your mind, and inform the world what every participant in this thread is thinking at this moment. Quick!

Posted by: Will Allen on April 26, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo is Jesus.

Posted by: Tom S on April 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum...another misguided lefty, but smart enough to sometimes see how intellectually bankrupt the Left is.

That's the best analysis of his article. Kevin: do you know WHY the Donkey Party's leading candidates are so vacant of ideas of how they'd be better than Republicans on the War on Terror? Do I really have to answer that question? OK, I'll state the painfully obvious: THE DEMOCRATS would PUT US ON DEFENSE, AND LEAVE US WEAKER! WOW! WHAT A CONCEPT!

They say a gaffe in Washington is when you accidentally say what you really mean, and Clinton and Obama's gaffes were their painfully weak responses to Giuliani. See Kevin, you have to understand the values inherent in these political ideologies so you can better understand the differences between the candidates. As vastly imperfect, even frustrating, as Republicans often are, the ideology of conservatism is about the balance of the left leaning virtue of compassion (feelings) with the right leaning virtue of discipline (rules). Now I know there are legions of examples of Republicans straying from this balance into jingoistic right-wing territory, and even left-wing territory on some issues (like Bush's drunken-sailor domestic spending in the name of "compassionate conservatism"), but the IDEOLOGY would prove itself out if you panel most traditional conservatives on most issues.

But the Left elevates compassion (again, feelings) over this balance, and minimizes the need for discipline (rules), particularly toward those they view as the less fortunate. As a result, the Left sees those who still maintain the balance between compassion and discipline as right-wing authoritarians, bent on favoring the "powerful and established" over the "poor and disenfranchised". This is the great dichotomy between the Left and the Right, and I'd submit to you that true conservatism is actually the mainstream value this country was based on, (as vastly imperfect as many conservatives themselves are), and it's the ideology of liberalism, and especially true leftism, that's out of the mainstream.

That is why, though most Americans are overwhelmingly frustrated with the status quo on Iraq and showed it at the polls last November, they strongly disagree with the Democratic establishment on defeat and retreat in Iraq, and especially disagree with the evisceration they'd employ on necessary tools like the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping, which are yet to have been shown to violate the civil rights of any innocent person.

Posted by: Pcon-T on April 26, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

The US did not require the Patriot Act to stop the Weathermen or the Symbionese Liberation Army. Read Obama's foreign policy speech. His policies are the same as any Republican's.

Posted by: Brojo on April 26, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Pcon-T is someone who appears to get what passes for "analysis" from right-wing talk radio, so hackneyed is his/her writing. The analysis sets up a false dichotomy.

True conservatives--who believe in changing as little as possible--would horrified by the Patriot Act and its threat to individual liberty (which is the basis for the founding of the US). Likewise, they would be horrified by by the Bush administration's adventurism in the Middle East. It is a pity that we don't have too many of them in the Republican party.

Since the GWOT does not, and never has, had a purely miltary solution (as the Bush administration has been demonstrating for the last six years), a different approach is needed.

Posted by: Tom S on April 26, 2007 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

TomS:

I agree the War on Terror has a much more than a military solution. Many different solutions have been employed since 9/11 -- diplomatic, financial, military, etc. -- although many have been poorly employed, and not very consistent or organized.

This war is unlike any we've ever faced, largely because we're fighting a shadowy, clandestine enemy that has blended into societies, despotic regimes, and legitimate governments all over the world. Hopefully we'll work through our mistakes and improve, as we've had to do since the beginning of time.

Conservatism doesn't mean "changing as little as possible"; it's the maintaining of traditional values of justice, right and wrong, compassion balanced with discipline, benefits balanced with responsibilities. I believe we can achieve what's right for everyone if we work together as a society, while adhering to these values. Enough with the pissing matches.

Posted by: pcon-T on April 26, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK
…they strongly disagree with the Democratic…Pcon-T at 7:21 PM
That, according to various polls is completely untrue, by a factor of 60% to 37%, as is your statement that no one has been discommoded by your patriot act.
...it's the maintaining of traditional values...… pcon-T at 11:53 PM
That doesn't fit any actions of your 'Compassionate Conservative' president nor of his authoritarian supporters. Posted by: Mike on April 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Mike,

You don't read very well, do you? I already stated in my first post, which you obviously read because you cited from it, that Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has led to "drunken sailor domestic spending". Because of his success at bridging political divides as governor of Texas, Bush staked a large part of his presidency on showing how conservative policies (lower taxes, more private capital and investment) leads to higher government revenues (which it has done extremely well; look at the steadily shrinking budget deficit), and then the "compassion" would be shown by lavish spending on many of the same government entitlement programs that make liberals giddy.

Also, what's your 60% to 37% poll relevant to? I already stated in that same post that Americans "are overwhelmingly frustrated with the status quo on Iraq and showed it at the polls last November". But polls also show most don't want to go to the extremes championed by the far left and the Democratic Party leadership, which is increasingly doing the far Left's bidding and asking if they want fries with that order.

How sad that one of your examples of people who've been "discommoded by your patriot act" is from the "Conspiracy Planet" website. Appropriate enough. But all these people have due process of law, as you well know, and that's the point. There are enough checks and balances, especially due to a highly scrutinizing media, that will make sure of that as well. Most people on the Left just seem to have a much lower threshold for the need to balance compassion with discipline, and rights with responsibilities, particularly in a time of war. Crises like these seem to force us into ideological camps, and we're seeing for the most part where most people shake out. What we need to do is try to keep things in balance and look out for signs of abuse, as with everything else. But don't eliminate potentially good programs because of periodic flaws. Let's fix the flaws instead. That's how a society works together.

Posted by: pcon-T on April 27, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Democrat candidates are a weak group. Putting aside biases and party affiliations, if you apply simple mathematical logic, you will see that Rudy Giuliani will be the next President. With the accelerated primary schedule, he is assured of the nomination. And then in the general election, all he has to do is win a couple of Blue states - and all indications are that he will do just that regardless of who the Democrat candidate is.

Posted by: siliconvalleypol on April 27, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you! Now, can you write that on a bat and hit the Dems over the head with it?

Why will they never learn? Why just because I have liberal thoughts, do I find myself with like-minded compatriots who are such damn wussies?

Only Bill Clinton got it right. You don't win by taking the high road. You win by getting the last word in. Geez. How many failed elections will it take for that to sink in?

The Dems need to throw this back at the Republicans and ask America "Do you feel safer now than you did 8 years ago?"

It's exactly how they got bullied into the war. NEVER BE DEFENSIVE!!! When Bush wanted to go to Iraq, the Dems shouldn't have countered with "let's hug it out, or let's find the WMD first."

They should have said. WE WANT BIN LADEN. GET HIM. DO NOTHING ELSE FIRST!!!

It is so unbelievably frustrating to see educated people being so incredibly obtuse.

Posted by: m on April 27, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

the other major problem is that the dems don't have to pay attention to repugnant-cans, early or late because unless hilary MURDERS someone, the R party has NO chance of hanging on to the white house.

it's amusing to watch the media try to care about the election so far in advance when the NFL draft is more intriguing right now.

the hil/obama struggle is the interesting story. who cares about rudy or any R$, frankly? people will learn to spell coRRuption with big R's forever.

Posted by: pre AmeriKKKan on April 28, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

ha, must be nice to be in such a fog, here's the version some of us relate to:
"Under a Republican, the sky is the limit with hard work and a little luck, the ability to steal land from native people, to import cheap slave labor to work it for obscene profits, and if you make sure that once you have gotten your ill gain, you hold on to it at all costs. it goes without saying that you do NOT remind your grandchildren that they would NOT have their ivy league educations or their houses and cars without great-grandpa's ability to be a serial killer.

ha, lucky new comers, conveniently forget that YOU are the illegals in THIS country and don't you forget it.

oh, don't even talk to me about how you gain success by merit and hard work. the world bank president wolfy showed us all how crony-ism is the dishonest way the profit-mongers get ahead in THIS corrupt system. that will change because real people have had it with the bootstrap myth.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:21 PM |

time to pay your share of the rent, newcomer.

Posted by: pre AmeriKKKan on April 28, 2007 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly