Its National Security stupid.

[Silverhair]

National Security will be the top issue this election. Not the economy this time - National Security. And it won't be enough to bash Bush v2.0, we are going to have to articulate a plan of our own, and our candidate will have to be some one with some credentials on the international stage.

9-11 happened. It wasn't a Hollywood action move. People are concerned that a group of Islamic radical fundamentalists could do something bigger and really do some damage.

I lived through the cold war, and I saw presidents with weak economic preformance get reelected because the public saw the other candidate as being weak on National Security.

That is one of the reasons I am a Clark supporter. My wife is too.

[HotAndSpicy]

1. Unfortunately

Unfortunatley recent polls of democratic primary voters in the early primary states shows national security ranking dead last at 1% to 2% as the issue of "most importance". So running a national security campaign is going to fail in the primaries when it is, as you correctly pointed out, the issue that needs to be at the forefront of the campaign in 2004.

I do not have the poll handy at this time to link, but it was done by Carvilles outfit.

[Code_Name_D]

2. So Clark supporters are running to "nationl security?"

Its not as strong an issue as some might think.

First off, its a fake war. Iraq did not threten us any more than afganistane. 9-11 happend becase Bush let it happen, even wanted it to happen. 9-11 was even called for in PNAC as "another Pearl harber." (The infamuse page 27 if I recall corectly.) The perpuse of this fake war is first and formost, to secure the oil. Though there are other resones born of greed, not a singel one of them has squat to do with nationl security.

Second. You can not talk about the war, without mentioning the economey. A simple fact is that we can not afford this war. To contiue it, dooms America to a total and lickly catistrofic economic colasp. Shortly followed by a governmental colaps vary simuler to what we saw in the Sovet Union.

Third. Its an ILLIGAL war! Any one who contiues to prosicute it, should be brought up on WAR CRIMES! Only thoes who are deluded by agoragence and self righcuness can convince themselves other wise.

[Silverhair]

7. I said National Security. I didn't say Iraq. Not the same thing.

By National Security I mean protecting the U.S. from further attacks like 9-11. I wasn't talking about Iraq, which will be a different subject, and the situation probably will have changed before summer. The Reps are smart enought to know that if it is still going at this pace next summer, that they will have a serious problem on their hands. Look for them to have some sort of gov't in place, and pulling troops out. That the new gov't will be weak and ineffective will be lost on most people. We will have to handle that as it is then, now as it is now.

Conspiracy theories don't help one little bit. They hurt us by making us look to the general public like crazies.

[Code_Name_D]

16. But the war on terror and nationl security are one and the same

Of which the war in Iraq is mearly an example. But hardly the only example.

And still you ignore my point. If 9-11 was caused by Bush permiting it to take place (A charge which Clark has also made) than why contiue to prosicute a war that it spaned? That is a contradiction in my book. But not to the Panecia Man selling sound bites.

[Silverhair]

19. There is a difference between error and intentional action.

In your first response you said, "9-11 happend becase Bush let it happen, even wanted it to happen. 9-11 was even called for in PNAC as "another Pearl harber."

The first part, "...let it happen..." can be taken to mean incompetence. OK, certainly the was some major ball dropping.

The second part of it suggest that it was part of a Bush plan and that he was in on it is CT stuff.

Clark has accused Bush of incompetence, but not of delibately being part of 9-11. There is a strong difference.

To win an election, we have to do more than gripe about the other guy. We have to talk about what we will do.

[Code_Name_D]

36. Yes, the diffrence is that Clark dosn't know PNAC

If any thing, he is still complicit with PNAC. Explane to me how Clark is an alternitive to Bush, when Clark fully intends to carry Bush's war forward.

You can argue esmantics all you like, it dosn't change the fact that Clark is complicit in an illigal war. Your selling point, is a deal braker.

[HotAndSpicy]

8. Your

spelling and grammer is some of the worst I have ever seen.

[Military Brat]

32. The correct spelling is "grammar"

And give the guy/gal a break. You don't know what has caused his/her spelling and grammar problems. He/She gets his/her point across, and that is what matters.

[QC]

34. There's a subject/verb disagreement in your post.

Normally I don't point out things like that, but given your obvious concern for correct grammar and spelling, I thought you would appreciate it.

[Military Brat]

40. That's okay, I don't mind the critique

Just trying to think of a way to post my message without implying the poster with the spelling problem is a man.

Edited for clarity. Now, back to the races!

Edited again ... no wonder I was perplexed. "Spelling and grammer is ..." You're right. Two mistakes in such a short sentence.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. True. Which disqualifies Dean if you really believe this

Clark and Kerry are (while Graham was) the only ones with any sort of National Defense credentials.
Dean backers are being short sighted.

[damnraddem]

6. Clark and Kerry did not and do not oppose the war, ...

just how it was run. That is criminally short-sighted. And only Clark can help the Democratic presidential run -- because it wouldn't do to have both prez and VP candidates from New England, so only Clark can run with Dean.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. The news that Iraq was seeking to avoid war validates Kerry's vote

the threat worked to get Iraq to comply. The only problem is Bush jumped the gun and pulled the trigger. President Kerry would not have done so, and not a life would have been lost.
Kerry supported the President, yet was opposed to war.

[Skwmom]

31. Doesn't sounds like Dean opposed the war to me

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398

Plus, seems like he's (gasp) praising Bush.


“He (Dean) does credit Bush for being "popular because he knows who he is, and he speaks unambiguously about his message."

[mrgorth]

9. You're obsessed.(nt)

.

[Faygo Kid]

4. Here's a unique idea: We could Tell The Truth

9-11 had nothing to do with Saddam. The Iraqi war has everything to do with the Project For A New American Century, and was going to take place with or without 9-11. This administration lied through its teeth as to the reasons we went into Iraq. We are no more secure for that action than we were before it, and are in fact less, because we have stirred up a Hornet's Nest of terrorism and hate, while weakening our own nation's economy, and the respect and cooperation that we had across the world after the 9-11 attacks. I guess we can advocate beating up everybody in the world who might deign to disagree with this administration, but I fail to see how that makes us safer, or a better and more prosperous nation. Shall I go on, or do you have another agenda?

[Silverhair]

10. Bush bashing isn't enough. What will you do...

to improve National Security? I repeat. What will you do to improve National Security. 9-11 did happen. We can't act like it didn't happen. If we ignore laying out a play to protect this nation from major terrorist attack, then WE WILL LOSE.

Saying that we will be nice to everybody won't do. The radical Islamicist are attacking us because of religion and that is not rational. The only thing that will stop them is if the entire country converted to Islam. Not just Islam, but their brand of it.

Do you understand that we have to do more than bash Bush and gripe about Iraq?

[Faygo Kid]

11. Obvious from my post. To repeat. . .

First, Tell the Truth! (Not that tough to understand). Identify the REAL sources of terrorism and weed them out (Afghanistan was OK with me, for example; are we following up?). Build coalitions; understand that we are not and cannot be alone in this world; get the UN involved in Iraq in a meaningful way. OK, I see no solutions from you, pal. Your turn. Have at it. P.S. Here's the edit you will note on this: Better intelligence, and LISTEN TO IT THIS TIME, rather than manipulate it to achieve a result you wish to reach. OK, NOW it's your turn.

[Silverhair]

17. Better. Now we have to tell those to the public.

Of course the answers are obvious. Of course chasing down shadowy international groups is going to be more like police work than it is like conventional military ops. Sometimes, but rarely, a country's gov't may need to be taken down. Certainly we can't make it look like we are out to eliminate Islam.

My point is that National Security will, I believe, be the dominate issue in the general election, although it won't be so big in the Dems primaries. The Reps primaries aren't worth mentioning, that will be more like a corination. To win the general election on National Security, we have to do more than Bush bash. We have to lay out a methodology that the people can understand.

Whatever we do, we can't talk about reasoning with violent religious radicals. You can only reason with sane people.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. Radical Islamicists will never destroy the United States.

Only the United States government can do that.

Are you defending Bush's record on national security? 9/11 happened on his watch. Bin Laden is free. The anthrax killer is free. Bush has denuded the national guard and reservists by shipping them off to fight a foreign war - a war which exacerbates your national security problems by radicalizing God knows how many Arabs who want only your blood. He's slashed funding for firefighters. Airport security is still a travesty. America hasn't been as vulnerable in decades, because it's never been more alone.

You think "National Security" is Bush's strong suit?

[Silverhair]

22. It is going to take more than Bush bashing.

We can stand around and bash Bush all we want to, but unless we lay out a plan to the public, we lose. You have to convince Joe & Jane Average. Convincing Firey Left Radical is easy, but usless. Firey L Radical's vote is balanced out by Firey Right Radical and nothing either side says if going to change the other. Joe & Jane will decide the election.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. I agree, of course, you have to win the middle,

and one way you do it is you don't let Bush own the issue. His national security track record is the worst in American history. Pound away at that. And as you do, naturally, introduce the alternatives a Democratic president can offer. For instance, how America is more secure when it is a partner honouring multilateral accords, admired by the world, and not a bully which alienates practically every major power, feared by all.

[Silverhair]

27. It is possible.

If I were an Islamic Religious Radical, and if I had 20 dedicated smart guys, the supplies I would need, (Not very expensive, no science fiction stuff, no nuke or radioactives or biological stuff, no chemical attacks, pretty ordinary actually) and one year to execute the plan, I could bring the country to its knees. No, I am not going to descripe exactly how. In another post, (What if terrorists really hurt us?) I talked about a couple of possibilities that have been written about in news magazines. Because they have already been openly speculated about I felt free to discuss them. Please understand why I decline to talk about other, more effective possibilities. Believe me, we are extremely vunerable.

[JackRiddler]

25. Stop bombing Everywhere.

Stop pretending we are the World Cop.

All the covert ops and low-intensity wars have created hell on earth - and the blowback that is 9/11 (regardless of who "did" 9/11). That is the truth. Say it. Say it until people begin to understand that only ending this endless war can bring security.

[Silverhair]

29. What about the Violent Religious Radicals?

Peace require two cooperating enities, both of whom have decided on peace. If one decides on war, the both will have war. Sorry, that's the way the real world works. I a mugger attacks you, you make be the most nonviolent person in the world, but for the duration of the attack, violence with be an intimate part of you life.

We can indeed reason with most governments. But you can only reason with the same. What do you do with the guy that hates you because your religion is different, and he is willing to kill both you and himself over it?

[Code_Name_D]

38. The violent religuse radicals are in Washinton.

Clark only wants to step into there shoes. He isn't an alterntive, he is more of the same.

[Code_Name_D]

37. But he still supports PNAC

If Clark plans to contiue the war in Iraq (and he dose) than he also supports PNAC. Bush is just a disposable figure head.

[JackRiddler]

23. PNAC and 9/11

"The Iraqi war has everything to do with the Project For A New American Century, and was going to take place with or without 9-11."

It wouldn't have happened without a new Pearl Harbor, as the PNAC people knew.

Maybe someone needed to make it happen?

[Silverhair]

30. I have no respect for CTs

[damnraddem]

5. The Clinton Administration had developed ...

an antiterrorist plan that might have thwarted 9/11 -- no guarantees, but we'll never know, because the Bushistas ignored it and reversed anti-terrorism actions Clinton had already taken. Clinton saw some humanitarian interventions and nation building as essential to the long-term security of the world. Dubya came into office denouncing nation building, and the Army soon scuttled its peacekeeper training. So, when the U.S. troops had taken Iraq, they were totally untrained as to what to do with it. And Dubya belatedly spouted 'nation building' and 'democratization' when his WMD lies were unmasked.

The thing is: Dubya is weak on national security. He has used the military Clinton left for him to defeat two weak enemies, and degraded the military in the process -- including policies that promise to decimate the reserves and the National Guard for years to come. He has destroyed military morale, not just by keeping troops in the Middle East, but also by reducing benefits for soldier, their families, and for veterans. And he ignored security warnings until it was too late, and then declared a 'War on Terra' that promises to make the problems of terrorism worse. No, Dubya is not, yet, perceived as being as weak on national security as he is -- it is our job to get across that picture.

And Clark will make a fine VP candidate alongside Dean.

[Silverhair]

14. Please see my response # 10, and...

So fine, you do nation building and that helps on some problems. But you still have the extremists that beleive Islamic law should be the civil law for the entire world still attack us. How do you propose to protect the U.S. from RELIGIOUS RADICALS who think they will get 70 virgins in their heaven when they die doing damage to "The Great Satan"?

[Faygo Kid]

15. Asking again: What's YOUR solution?

Starting to see a pattern here. Going to keep asking (have given you mine twice): What do YOU see as a solution?

[Silverhair]

18. Hey, I had to have time to type it. See my response above. n/t

[mmonk]

12. No matter what polling data says

the country changed with 9/11 and the general public has swallowed alot of propaganda about Dems, especially on matters of defense. It will be an issue and dems cannot have a plan that matches Bush in foreign policy and win but also they can't appear to be weak on defense and defense issues. Clark would be the best at deflecting the charge of weak on defense as well as being able to challenge Bush on defense policy while being considered credible, experienced and knowlegable.

[Silverhair]

21. Dems have been viewed as soft on National Security...

ever since 1972. That has been the consistent view of the public for the past 31 years. It isn't something new since 9-11.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. "Are you safer now than you were four years ago?"

Ask this next year. What do you think people will say?

Don't let Bush own the issue of national security just because he dresses like a soldier. He doesn't deserve it. His record is abysmal. Hammer on the record. Remind voters they're safer as admired partners in the world, rather than its feared rulers.

[Silverhair]

28. Interesting.

Taking the slogan that Reagan used against Carter and using it, slightly modified. Funny too, such irony. Has possibilities.

Still need to talk about Violent Religious Radical Islamics. Those guys can't be reasoned with. They bombed the Red Cross too.

[Military Brat]

33. I'm in agreement, don't let bush own the national security

I'm flummoxed how people can look to bush for security when he basically abandoned Afghanistan before it was secure, invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, dropped the ball with Osama, ignores the Saudi problem, and fails to address the most basic of needs in providing protection within the United States.

If you place your trust in bush, it's like leaving your door unlocked and your windows open at night in a dangerous neighborhood, and expecting your yapping Chihuahua to protect you.

[knight_of_the_star]

35. That's blunt

NOw if we could figure out a way to work that into an attack ad.

[Cocoa]

39. It's still the economy, but there's no stupid this time

When Clinton said that, the threats were abstract, so it was hard for people to know what to think about national security.

This time, people know for sure at least the kind of thing that we're supposed to be worried about, so it's going to be a factor the way it wasn't before.

But it's still kind of a potential thing, unless Bush reminds us with some orchestrated scare, where the economy is someting people live every day.