[*Headline changed: discussion below]
Jacob Weisberg of Slate, a tough critic of President Bush over the years, posted this piece before the British arrested 21 men they accused of plotting to blow up 10 airplanes…
His analysis will displease many BMG readers.
[Lamont’s defeat of Lieberman]…is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party….
Lieberman’s opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us and for the Iraqis.
The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush’s faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it.
Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously.
Discuss.
I concur with some of that sentiment, as I posted on my own blog today and yesterday, to the extent that the Pro-Lamont, anti-military portions of the Democratic party make me nervous, and are just so far out of touch with national sentiment, and indeed, rational and logical foreign policy, as to weaken the party’s chances of eventually taking back the White House.
Who is more serious? Those that claim our continued presence in another country’s civil war is not helping matters or the person who continually goes on telivision and tells us how wonderful things are in the country experiencing said civil war?
<
p>
Who was more serious in 2002-2003? Those that predicted that our invasion of Iraq could trigger a civil war or those that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the whole thing would pay for itself, and it would be over in “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months”?
The way I took that point was that simply because progressives are rightfully taking a stand against the Bush administration about a war that was both poorly conceived and executed, doesn’t mean that the party ought to eschew all military solutions to the global terrorism problem. Which might result in, say, reduced support from the party for Israel’s right to defend itself in the face of the international community’s failure to reign in the proliferation of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
<
p>
You know, that sort of thing.
Most people outside of International ANSWER freakshows think that a military response is appropriate to fight terrorism. The US’s actions in Afghanistan were met with near universal approval from progressives outside of a handful of weirdos in Cambridge.
Sco,
<
p>
I respectfully disagree. So long as the Dem message on national security is “Let’s focus elsewhere – let’on domestic policy stuff we like to talk about,” they can’t win many elections. A few, sure.
<
p>
You might say…Dem message is not “Let’s focus elsewhere.”
<
p>
This is the lead paragraph on Lamont’s website:
<
p>
<
p>
I read that as “Let’s focus elsewhere.”
<
p>
Swing voters, I believe, are open to a message that says, I dunno, something like….”Rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq, it is time for America to invest more in a transformed military, one with far fewer Cold War weapons and massive new investment in special ops and intel; more in preparing for Iran and N. Korea contingencies; more in border and port security; more in understanding long-term non-jihadist threats; more in real diplomacy and an American message that doesn’t come across as crazed cowboy on steroids.”
<
p>
I think many swing voters are open to the idea that the Bush Administration has totally bungled national security. But they need two things. First, a specific, plausible alternative strategy. Second, a sense that the Dem leaders are OBSESSED with national security….i.e., they have more than talking points, but rather that this is the sort of stuff that they LOVE to deal with, that they’re national security junkies. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid can’t pull that off because quite honestly they’re NOT those types of people. Kos promotes “Fighting Dems” and I think he gets the need for this.
I see nothing in Lamont’s statement that implies he’s against any sort of military opposition to terrorists. I see opposition to our misadventure in Iraq, but that does not imply a wholesale discounting of use of military force.
Actually, Rummy’s quote was about the military-to-military conflict itself, and he was right about that.
<
p>
Where he messed up: a) He not only totally “misunderestimated” the domestic terrorism which would spring up, but b) misoverestimated the level of support from other nations….
<
p>
Here’s the transcript:
<
p>
<
p>
Hillary’s right. Rummy should go.
WSJ: 8/10/06. Michael Barone
<
p>
The fact that Jackson and Sharpton were next to Lamont just means that there was a camera trained on him.
<
p>
When there’s a camera, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are in front of it. Those guys are such camera hogs that I’m surprised they’re not in my vacation photos.
The voters of Connecticut rejected Joe Lieberman because he no longer represents their views on a variety of subjects and issues. Connecticut voters didn’t like the way Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, cuddled up to George Bush, a Republican president whose vile idiocy is unparalled in American history.
<
p>
The nomination of Ned Lamont does not spell Armageddon for the future. The hyperbolic hysteria of people writing on this subject is simply stunning. A single Democratic senator lost in a primary to another Democrat with a different viewpoint, a viewpoint held by many other Democrats already in office in both the House and the Senate. A viewpoint that, apparently, is held by the majority of Connecticut Democrats.
<
p>
What we should not take seriously is the reactionary hand-wringing of those who invest way too much value and extrapolate way too grossly in the re-election loss of one senator.
Labor unions? Minimum wage? Health care?
<
p>
OTHER THAN THE WAR, where did 90% Joe go astray?
Actually, Joe was one of the Senators that torpedoed Clinton’s health care proposal back in 93. So that’s one.
<
p>
His biggest problem, though, wasn’t his votes necessarily (unless you count cloture votes, in which case he frequently voted in favor of cloture when it mattered, but against the measure that eventually passed). Lieberman’s problem was his rhetoric. If you tell your fellow Democrats that they’re traitors for not supporting the war, don’t be surprised when they don’t support you.
<
p>
And that was half the problem. He was surprised, because he’s trapped in the DC bubble where everyone loves him because he’s the first to criticize fellow Dems, so he gets to be on all the talk shows.
And you’re wrong, PP. It is NOT just the war – otherwise, why is Hillary going to kick the ass of her lefty primary challenger? She’s been just about as hawkish as Lieberman – but she has also backed her party and not taken crap from the Bush administration. The DSCC statement got it about right – the election was as much, if not more, a referendum on a Dem who cuddles up (literally – ewwww) to George Bush and who questions the patriotism of his fellow Democrats than it was on military strategy.
And they reelected him in the interim?
<
p>
WHAT issue besides the war? THAT was the original assertion by Iris, that he had ceased to represent his constituents on a number of isses. Where else did 90% Joe fall by the wayside?
<
p>
What you are saying now is that it’s not just the war, it’s how you TALK about the war, i.e., if you are hypocritical enough like Hillary, you can point to your votes in front of the DAV and to your rhetoric in front of the WILPF. THAT’S helpful! /snark
and settle down. Your comment is completely incoherent. And this has nothing to do with Joe vs. Bill – ancient history.
Lieberman parted company with most Democrats in other ways besides the war. Besides cuddling up the Bush:
<
p>
1. He criticized Democrats who criticized the President:
<
p>
2. He was for SS privatization before he was against it. He only voted against it when it was clear the presidents plan was essentially defeated.
<
p>
3. He failed to support the filibuster of Judge Alito to the United States Supreme Court.
<
p>
4. He supported the bankruptcy bill.
<
p>
5. Lieberman opposed the proposed legislation in CT that would require all hospitals to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims.
<
p>
<
p>
6. He believes the U.S. governments intervention in Terry Schiavos case was justified and does not support the notion that legal next-of-kin should have authority in these issues.
<
p>
7. Lieberman opposes marriage for same sex couples.
<
p>
Now there are some Democrats who agree with some of these stances, but taken in the aggregate, Liebermans votes and positions on key issues were in direct opposition to those widely held by most Democrats. Combine all this with his outrageous support of Bush’s war, most Democrats in Connecticut voted for the other guy who, apparently, reflects their values and their positions on these issues.
I was with him on the Alito filibuster. That was bush league. No pun intended.
Rather than just accuse me of drooling on my screen!
Democrats are informed people with sensitivity to foreign diplomacy – much more so than Republicans. I would argue that we (“the anti-Lieberman insurgents”, as you say) take the matter much more seriously than the GOP – as we think about the matter in terms of cause & effect.
<
p>
This is all a vicious cycle – and it is too bad more people don’t realize this. Fighting a war on terror is a two-pronged approach, including both offense and defense.
<
p>
Offensive:
Yes, we should always “send a message” and unleash the fury on known terrorists and their supporters, and let the world know we do not accept such behavior. We should never give in to their demands – and we should always fully endorse targeting and punishing known terrorists and any government or group that WE KNOW harbors them, with a relatively decent degree of certainty that our intelligence is correct.
<
p>
Defensive:
We can certainly antagonize our known enemies, but we can not antagonize sympathizers and people who may turn into sympathizers. You simply can not keep bombing and occupying a region full of innocent civilians, as well as neighboring regions for an extended period of time, without a purpose that is very clear to those people (let alone, us). You can not fund allies, and later declare them to be your enemy. You can not impose a war on a region, and then not provide significant humanitarian aid – and secure that aid so it ends up in the right hands. I dare say, if you go in to a largely innocent population and cause such destruction, you should OVERCOMPENSATE them with food, clothing, supplies, mobile housing to replace their destroyed homes, hospitals, electricity (which is down constantly in regions of war) and economic opportunities. We must also be extra careful not to create sympathizers in our own country, with stereotyping and racism against Muslims that is so commonplace. Without a proper defensive policy like this, WE ARE SIMPLY MANUFACTURING NEW TERRORISTS.
<
p>
There is a careful balance between making your point and going overboard. The mentality that significant “Islamic fanaticism” will exist on its own in a vacuum, and we need to eliminate all of them before they get us, is wrong. Continued, prolonged war in Iraq, will, without a doubt, be cited by many people as a causal reason for this recent terror cell making their plans.
<
p>
It has been said (in the old days, before PETA) that you slap a dog until it obeys, but if you slap it any further, it will bite you back. At that point, all the doggy treats (even those lamb flavored ones) in the world will never make that dog trust you again.
<
p>
Virtually all Democrats except perhaps a very unnoticeably small radical percentage, do support the war on terror – and we take the matter very seriously. That is why we need to cut back on our military presence in the Mideast.
From what I have heard, the would-be bombers were all Brits.
<
p>
As to the discussion of the misguided military response in Iraq and the meaningless phrase “war on terrorism” — please note that this plot was not foiled by having the Air Force bomb the shit out of a civilian population, but through conventional crime-fighting techniques, which is where we should be spending our money.
<
p>
There was an excellent article in a recent New Yorker explaining how 9/11 might very well have been prevented if the CIA had cooperated (shared information) with the FBI…
<
p>
We will never “win” against terrorists any more than crime and greed and corruption will go away. We need to continually improve our ability to detect and preempt all criminal behavior, including terrorism, and this case is a sterling (so to speak) example of that.
The last three or four times a Democrat was elected President, Foreign Policy didn’t matter
<
p>
Carter-Fallout from Watergate, Corruption was the issue
<
p>
Clinton 2x- Cold War was over, terrorism wasnt in the picture
<
p>
Gore (sort of)- still no terrorism, nation at peace
<
p>
In contrast, when foreign policy did matter in elections, Democratic Hawks fared well.
<
p>
Truman- Aggressive Containment, anti communism, Marshall plan, wins
<
p>
Stevenson- weak internationalism, loses
<
p>
JFK- Renewed investment in defense, combating soviets on “missle deficiency” wins
<
p>
LBJ- strong defense, but not irrational like goldwater, wins
<
p>
1968 is the turning point. The candidate who could hold the peace faction and hawk faction together, RFK, got shot after the California primary, and McCarthy’s campaign fell apart. Humphrey wasn’t able to get his act together untill it was too late. Disorganization led to the dems loss
<
p>
McGovern- isolation, loses
<
p>
Mondale- not clear what he stood for
<
p>
Dukakis- the tank?!?!
<
p>
Clearly, when dems run hawks in war time they win. The only time a progressive like Carter can win is during peacetime when the US public isnt absorbed in foreign policy. Thats why the Lieberman loss is a bad sign for the party. Even if Iraq was poorly reasoned, the result shows that the democratic primary was affected disproportionatey by anti war ( not anti iraq war) activists who dont believe in the war on terror.
GGW, and we can promote this. They were British bombers!
Bob,
<
p>
I really must object to your diary headline “One Party State.” 🙂
<
p>
After all, even if we had a Dem governor, MA wouldn’t technically be a one-party state. And evidently we don’t allow imprecision-for-the-sake-of-brevity in headlines anymore.
<
p>
Also, imagine how the Travaligni brothers feel today, knowing that you compared them to the ruthless Castro brothers. Sad, I bet.
<
p>
If you change your title, I’ll recommend your post!
My previous headline got cut off. I guess it was too long.
<
p>
“…some of whom are likely to be Pakistani nationals, though of course this is all early information and we’re not sure about anything” was the whole thing. Darned Soapblox.
If 24 Americans of Polish descent were arrested in similar circumstances, then it would be acceptable to have a headline that stated this?
<
p>
<
p>
Really, let’s be responsibly precise in these matters. The arrested are Brits. Period. Your title is inflammatory and inaccurate.
<
p>
We can do better than your hypothetical. How did a Canadian newspaper cover the recent Seattle shooting at a Jewish community center, where the suspect was a Muslim American?
<
p>
Here’s the Vancouver Sun: Seattle Muslim shoots 6 at Jewish Centre
<
p>
They didn’t say “American shoots 6.” It was relevant that he’s Muslim. Do you find their headline inflammatory? I realize that this comparison isn’t identical, since it names religion and not ethnicity, but I’m just curious: is this inflammatory or okay?
<
p>
2. The Globe this AM:
<
p>
<
p>
Your view, “Brits – Period”, deliberately omits the Pakistani connection, which I think is relevant. It lets us know they’re not Saudi, for example, like the 9-11 guys; that they’re not Iraqi, which the Bush Administration would love in the sense that they could push their “hotbed of terror” argument; that they’re not Palestinian or Lebanese or Syrian or Iranian, which would be relevant given other world events; that Pakistan continues to be a hotspot in that it seems like people continue to go there for terrorist training.
<
p>
For a single word description, I would concede that “Islamic” would have been more precise than “Pakistani,” but less relevant. If anything, the goal is to break down the notion of “Islamic terrorist” into more precise categories of people who have somewhat different motives and situations.
<
p>
3. My point to Bob was simply that I think he should handle his disagreement with my headline the way we all do – simply by commenting, just like you did.
<
p>
However, it’s his website, so of course I also find it reasonable that he handle things in the manner of his choosing.
is, by implication, an American Muslim given the location of Seattle.
<
p>
C’mon now.
<
p>
If your intention is to highlight their Muslim status, then your title should read “24 British Muslims (or Islamists).”
<
p>
Your title is inflammatory because it is intentionally inaccurate in order to underscore what you personally find important.
<
p>
Candidly, I find your blurring of the lines of accuracy here a little bit disingenuous and self-serving. I would argue that the Pakistani connection you wish to highlight, and rightfully so, belong in the body of your piece, not distilled to the point of factual inaccuracy in a title that is both misleading and just plain wrong.
do we spend time worrying what to call the would-be terrorist so as not to offend anyone. Yeah, some appear to have been British nationals, but it’s not innaccurate to call them Pakistani.