Before I continue, I want to make clear that I never was in favor of the Iraq war. In fact, I could not support John Kerry in the primaries because of his vote. I supported Wes Clark Democrat in the primaries because I figured the Republicans would run on national security and we needed a candidate that would be perceived as strong in this area. I continue to believe this is the key issue Democrats have to better address in order to win back power in Washington.
9/11 turned Soccer Moms into Security Moms and despite the Bushâs Follies in Iraq, the Republicans consistently use the national security club to beat us and unless we change our messaging, weâre doomed to repeat the same mistake in 2006.
Derrick Jacksonâs column illustrates this danger. While I deplore the killing of innocents in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Iâm no pacifist and I support whole hardly the killing of any top Al Qaeda operatives and Iâm willing to accept the killing of a few innocent people in the process. I suspect a vast majority of Americans support this horrible reality also. (And anyone inviting Al Qaeda members to dine with them are endangering themselves and their families…so one can argue…how “innocent” were they.)
One of the Al Qaeda operatives purported to have been killed in this attack was the chief bomb maker for the group and supposedly trained hundreds of recruits in this deadly art. I have no doubt that killing that man saved lives in the long run. The killing of 13 people, 5 of whom were children, was worth the life of this man. A terrible equation to make, but given the horror of 9/11, it is an equation that must be made.
Of course the main target was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaedaâs # two. Even if we had killed no Al Qaeda and 13 people died, I would still support the attempt, because, unlike the Iraqis, Al Qaeda is trying to kill Americans and we need to kill them first. And I submit that a significant majority of Americans would agree with that statement.
But Jackson (and many on the left) canât seem to make the distinction between going after Al Qaeda and the optional war Bush started in Iraq. Itâs ironic, Democrats are correct to point out that Iraq and 9/11 had nothing to do with each other. Yet, when condemning the actions of the Bush Administration, some Democrats can not make the distinction between trying to kill our real enemies (Al Qaeda) and the unwarranted war in Iraq.
By condemning and lumping legitimate attacks on the people behind 9/11, with the mistakes in Iraq, some progressives undermine the Democrats on the issue of National Security.
We need to carve out a stand that opposes the imperial power of the Bush administration, but clearly supports the eradication of our enemies. And as we raise legitimate concerns around warrant less searches, we must FIRST support the concept that our government must be able to monitor communications among people (including US citizens domestically) who we have reason to believe are a threat to Americansâ¦as long we have the checks and balances of the FISA laws or modifications passed by Congress.
Weâre not going to turn Security Moms back into Soccer Moms until the Democrats make them feel safe. This is not an endorsement of the Lieberman / Clinton / Bayh wing of the party, but I believe more reflexâs the thinking of Russ Feingold.
