For every action (from Bush), there should be an equal and opposite reaction (from Dems)

As part of the administration’s third “major public relations offensive” on Iraq, the president delivered yet another speech and the White House released yet another report. This time, however, Dems decided to try and share the headlines.

The fall campaign season opened today with President Bush and Democrats each trying to seize the high ground on national security, as the White House released an updated version of its anti-terrorism strategy and the Democrats countered with list of the administration’s shortcomings on the issue.

The White House report, titled “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism,” was drafted in 2003 and updated in March. The new version confirmed the growth of decentralized networks of extremists, which have supplanted Al Qaeda as the greatest terrorism threat, and singled out Iran as a potential source of unconventional weapons for terrorist groups. […]

A group of top Democrats held a press conference today before Mr. Bush’s speech to release a report that they said showed the president’s approach to terrorism to be a failure. The report was compiled by the Third Way National Security Project, a nonprofit advocacy group that describes itself as progressive.

“Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats, and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate. “This new report is a stunning indictment of Bush foreign policy, and it makes a clear case for the new direction we need to keep America safe.”

Good. This NYT article buried the information on the Dems way down in the piece — after 17 paragraphs on the White House’s position — but at least the lede worked pretty well. Bush doesn’t have the national security game to himself — both sides are “trying to seize the high ground” at the same time. Bush has offered a defense of his strategy, and Dems have highlighted what a failure that strategy has been.

For some of you, this might sound kind of familiar. In March, in a largely-unsuccessful attempt at bolstering the party’s credibility on national security issues, Dem leaders unveiled a report called “Real Security” (.pdf). It wasn’t particularly well received — the media ignored it, and the document itself was a little thin, policy wise. (Kevin Drum called it a “truly crappy document,” and while I wouldn’t go quite that far, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that party leaders never mentioned the report again in public.)

That said, I think today’s report is a vast improvement. It was unveiled today in DC with the entire leadership team and Gen. Wesley Clark, and it served as a perfect counterbalance to today’s new report from the White House.

The Dems’ report — called “The Neo Con,” which is a catchy title — simply tears the administration a new one.

The new report throws the national security failures of the Bush Administration and its rubberstamp Republican Congress into harsh relief. Shockingly, despite repeated rhetoric from the White House citing the new realities of the post-9/11 world, Bush Republican incompetence has left America vulnerable in an increasingly unstable world. Bogged down in Iraq with its military stretched thin, America now finds itself less able to fight and win the war on terror. Around the world, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea have grown more dangerous. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks around the world have rapidly multiplied.

Sharon Burke, the project’s director, said that the study showed that the number of al Qaeda members had grown from about 20,000 in 2001 to about 50,000 today, and that terrorist attacks worldwide were up sharply. The number and power of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are also on the rise, she said, while the strength and readiness of the American military have been drained by the war in Iraq.

“We took a hard look at the numbers,” Burke said, “and the numbers don’t lie — the Bush strategy is not working.”

Point by point, “[tag]Neo Con[/tag]” highlights the fact that every key indicator for success is going in the wrong direction. Iraq is more dangerous, not less. Terrorist attacks have gone up, not down. Our international alliances have grown weaker, not stronger. Al Qaeda’s membership has grown, not shrunk. Afghanistan is sliding backwards, not forwards. The American military is less prepared and equipped, not more. Iran and North Korea represent a much greater threat, not less of one. We all knew this, of course, but it’s nice to see it in one place, with lots of helpful graphs and footnotes.

Now, you’re probably thinking, “There’s no way regular people are going to read this 27-page report.” That’s probably true, but it’s not entirely the point. The new White House document is 29 pages, and no one’s going to read that either.

The point is to take on the administration, tit for tat. They get headlines with their new report defending Bush’s strategy; we get headlines with our new report eviscerating Bush’s strategy.

It’s about stepping up and saying, “Bush can’t have the national security high ground anymore.”

While it’s nice to see the Dems use a pre-emptive strike — and do so in such a clear manner — the document lacks the same thing the Bush document does:

Actual solutions to the problem of terrorism.

Yes, pointing out Bush failures is important (although, we have to admit, like shooting whales in a barrel). But there has to be a more concrete plan from the left at some point, doesn’t there?

  • While the President may be correct in his analysis that the war on terrorism is expanding to other regions, he fails to see that his approach to the issue…particularly his decision to invade Iraq and the fact that progress in the troubled country seems elusive…may well be creating the new threats. Further, as he heightens his rhetoric in order to win votes by inferring that the origin of these extremists is Islam, he foments more animosity in more countries and the terrorism equation keeps growing.

    If we concede that the President is sincerely motivated…and I might be inclined to concede as much…it nonetheless doesn’t make him right. Additionally, if his approach is wrong and it is actually inciting more terrorists, then his convictions simply amplify the problem and diminish the potential for him to chart a new course. In the end, his rhetoric may well be more dangerous if it is sincere…but one cannot argue that his recent remarks aren’t political. The fact that his politics stem from his ideology is no comfort to the many Americans that simply reject his conclusions. In fact, that merely makes it all the more important to counter his politics.

    Read more here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • I think any set of solutions to the problem of terrorism starts with “Step 1: Stop digging the hole deeper.”

    Since the people in power want to keep digging, faster and deeper if possible, I think it’s where the Dems have to start.

    I’d be hard-put to imagine any more concrete plan that would be worse than the one currently being followed.

  • I think that Unholy Moses is forgetting that the Dems proposed the “Real Security” whitepaper about a year ago. While one may disagree over the particulars of the document; it is in substance a reasonable strategic outline of the way in which Democrats would address security issues. The GoOPers would like nothing better than the echo chamber repeating the “Dems don’t have any ideas of their own” meme, however like so much of their speech it is wrong.

  • The fundamental difficulty with solutions to terrorism is that there are very few available without first solving the dilemma of Iraq. It’s true, as biggerbox says, that we have to stop digging deeper, but even if we do, the Bush strategy — from the get go — dug us into a position that prevents a clean, successful extraction. It just can’t happen.

    (One valid WW II analogy is Hitler’s and Bush’s failures as competent commanders-in-chief.)

    The ugly truth is that either party who states the ugly truth will be vilified. Americans don’t like bad news, such as “we lost” or “you will have to sacrifice” or “properly fighting terrorists is much easier than invading and occupying countries.” If the Democrats tell the truth, they’re toast. Both the GOP and the Democratic party know that.

  • “But there has to be a more concrete plan from the left at some point, doesn’t there?”

    I am agnositic about this statement, probably because I am atheistic when it comes to party politics.

    Which is to say: I don’t believe one party has the solution to terrorism.

    Which is also to say: Since 9/11 have the best and smartest brains in America regarding security and terrorism been gathered into one room to discuss this issue?

    No.
    In fact the answer is the complete opposite.

    What we have instead is a “blind man in a room full of deaf people.” What we have instead is a closed government led from the gut with no stomach for new ideas. What we have instead is a play pretend intellectual who demands utter loyalty of his staff between joyrides on a mountain bike.

    What we have instead… is an utter travesty.

    The idea that the left or the right or the dems or the reps can solve this issue out of their own narrow party polemics is probably absurd. What this country needs is a leader who is willing to gather together the best professional minds from multiple persuasions and go from there. The problem is way too broad to be narrowly confined.

    Electing anybody who claims to have a plan for the solution to terrorism is just electing more of the same deaf and dumb stupidity.

  • All the posts on this page have hit many of the facets of the problem, but another is that this has all turned into a game. The Dems have had to move away from real Congressional leadership, where both parties normally engage in a boring, laborious kabubi theater of wrangling policy decisions through the chambers, and into the realm of having to outdo the other party’s political stunts — all to attract a share of the media limelight.

    I’ve moved beyond thinking that the media is either biased towards the White House, paid off through some Rovian move or has had a collective case of Alzheimer’s and doesn’t know what it’s doing or why to just plain thinking it doesn’t give a f**k. Unless it falls into the realm of news’otainment, nobody in the media cares. So enter the orchestrated pissing match. Harry Reid’s vaunted warroom has been absent of late and it’s good to see something stirring.

    Politics has now been taken over by celebrity. We want our leaders to be likeable celebrities or fashionable anti-heroes we can boo. The media now covers stories for the drama contained therein and not reportage of the facts. Face it, what passes for news these days is the political equivalent to who’s Jessica Simpson shacking up with these days and does baby Suri actually exist. The Repubs are the likeable but homely heroes in today’s news while the Dems are the cartooney villian to the Repub comic strip good guy. What needs to happen for the Dems to become media darlings is have a pro wrestling-like conversion from scapegoat to hero. I don’t know how to manufacture that. But when it does, the spotlight will shine on what the Dems are actually saying and doing.

  • ***What needs to happen for the Dems to become media darlings is have a pro wrestling-like conversion from scapegoat to hero. I don’t know how to manufacture that. But when it does, the spotlight will shine on what the Dems are actually saying and doing.***
    ————————————-petorado

    It’s simple. Take the “Mission Accomplished” stunt—the videotapes, the pictures, the text and the audio, including all of the bravado from the conservative media-jackals—and hit them on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis with one question for which there is no defense and no spin:

    WHERE’S THE ACCOMPLISHMENT?

    Take all the “we’re gonna get ObL” stuff—same as the “Mission Accomplished” stuff—and ask the one question that’ll haunt them into an ignominious defeat:

    WHERE’S OSAMA?

    Then, roll out the film and photographs for the aftermath of every al-Quaeda attack since 9/11, every insurgency attack in Iraq, the ongoing melee in Afghanistan caused by the “no-longer-in-existence Taliban,” and—yes—hit the cowardly profiteers square-on with the graves, the funerals, the obituaries, and the flag-draped coffins

    When the snivelling sods complain, don’t withdraw the attack. Instead—double it.

    When they scream “Have you no decency?”—reply with “It is for the sake of Decency itself that we do this.”

    When they invoke the name of their “god”—start invoking the names of soldiers and civilians who have been ruthlessly murdered by Herr Bush and his Republikanner Congress. Yes—“Murdered”—because the wrongful infliction of death upon another in the commission of a criminal offense, of which the Iraq debacle most certainly qualifies, constitutes a definition of murder.

    There is but 62 days and a mere handful of hours, as of this writing, before the polls open, and it is of the utmost importance that the Democratic Party reach the immediate conclusion that this current engagement against the GOP constitutes “Total War.” Hit them without remorse; hit them with both malice and intent; trade them blow for blow with the strategy being to hit them even more, should the opportunities bestow themselves.

    It is time to start digging the grave of the GOP….

  • I think that the Dems should be discussing what is happening over here in the UK regarding Tony Blair. He is being held accountable for his policies, which an overwhelming majority of people in the UK are against and at the same time the UK remains “tough” on terror

  • The idea that the left or the right or the dems or the reps can solve this issue out of their own narrow party polemics is probably absurd. What this country needs is a leader who is willing to gather together the best professional minds from multiple persuasions and go from there. The problem is way too broad to be narrowly confined.
    –koreyel

    So … when you running for Congress? (And I only mean that half jokingly.)

    🙂

    I’ve read the “Real Security” white paper a few times, and it is a good document with several real solutions. But in many ways it’s still a political document that talks about goals, but misses the crucial step of how those goals will be achieved. I’m not asking for specifics as far as number of man hours and dollars, but more in terms of what koreyel suggested — an over-arching and plausible way to truly implement the plan.

    Yeah, yeah. I know. I’m pickin’ nits.

    But when you’re dealing with some of the nitwits we have in Congress, some nits must be picked … or … something.

  • Comments are closed.