A How To, And Not How To, Discuss The Politics of National Security

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:53:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Iraq Debacle, and the perceived reesolve of Democrats of late has the Beltway perplexed:

Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challenge to the president is a striking change for a party that has, on many occasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on national security issues.

The article also provides textbook examples of how to discuss and NOT discuss the Politics of National Security.

First the Good:

“What challenges the Democrats now is fashioning — not just muscular, not just more — but a more sophisticated approach to security,” [Gary Hart] said, “and that requires you to comprehend the security needs of the 21st century. That’s the prize to be won, because the Republicans are in huge disarray now.”

How NOT to discuss it:

“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group.

Just shut up Bennett. Getting out of Iraq does not and never has been the only thing Dems say on national security. It is a policy initiative growing from a comprehensive approach. That you said what you said demonstrates that YOU have nothing to add to this discussion. What a dope.

< Gonzogate: Sampson Talks | The Right to Jaywalk >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A How To, And Not How To, Discuss The Politics of National Security | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sort of being a little tough on (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:20:34 AM EST

Bennett aren't you? Oh Hell, he obviously needs a little education about the 21st century and Democrats and everything that needs to happen here so go ahead BTD. It is pretty hard to provide America with much National Security when everyone who signs up for the job gets shipped to Iraq in a vain attempt to plug and shore up Bush's leaking collapsing legacy from hell.

: Lessons in how to talk about it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:25:49 AM EST

: Not at all (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:41:14 AM EST

If he took his head out of his a** he might notice that not only is the air a lot fresher, but that most Americans want us to end this stupid war. Where do guys like this come from? Who does he talk to on a daily basis, besides Joe Lieberman? I've got news for Bennett: if everyone you know supports the war in Iraq, you are not a Democrat.

: Bennett has it exactly right. (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:03:53 AM EST

Demos and National Security have become mutally exclusive.
Bush will veto and when the country finally figures out what the Demos have done, the fur will fly.

Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#4)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:24:15 PM EST

Democratic Congressional leaders say they are moving in the direction of an alternative foreign policy vision.

Democrats are only now starting to develop a vision of foreign policy? Haven't the past six years of neocon foreign policy been enough to crystallize anyone's views on foreign policy? Even if it's just at the level of Whatever they've been doing, do the opposite.

Princeton Project (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Edger on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:10:32 PM EST

Princeton Universities Wilson School has been working on devising a new cogent and workable foreign policy for America that may show promise. The Princeton Project on National Security on September 29, 2006 released their final report in the form of 96 page PDF document titled "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, U.S. National Security In The 21st Century.

Developed by 400 contributors over a 2 year period, to, from the mission statement: "set forth agreed premises or foundational principles to guide the development of specific national security strategies by successive administrations in coming decades".

The Princeton Project's report is here. Trust Albert Einstein's old school to take up the challenge.

It's a long read, but it's worth it.


: I read the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:17:18 AM EST

executive summary when it came out - I've been meaning to read the rest. Thanks for the reminder.

It's a singular, not a plural. (none / 0) (#6)
by jr on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:44:43 PM EST

They're moving towards a singular Democratic position. That is damn near a high order miracle--so many divergent interests and ideological differences being put aside for a unified party stance to develop is almost unheard of within our party.


: I appreciate your point (none / 0) (#8)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:49:44 PM EST

at one level, but in a broader sense I reject it and demand more from them. The path the U.S. has been on shouldn't exactly be a surprise to any of them. Since even the Blue Dogs are Democrats, not Republicans, that implies they share some common philosophical basis that makes them so. Yet I read the party platform and shake my head, wondering why they can't get together behind anything but the blandest and most reactive motherhood generalities. I fault them for not working harder to identify and build on their common core. So much of the rest of the party's problems arise from this.
Perhaps I'm only waking up lately to how much the Democratic Party isn't really a party at all so much as a parliamentary-type coalition, a lurching frankenstein's monster stitched together to compete in an unyielding two-party system. It's an old joke, of course - not a member of any organized party, I'm a Democrat - I just don't find it funny anymore. It seems to me the Republicans have been much smarter about recognizing and working the dynamics of coalition politics to create clear and ideologically coherent positions than Democrats have.

That's about it. (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:04:33 AM EST

I would (none / 0) (#5)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:40:38 PM EST

like to hear what the dems have for foreign policy other than getting out of Iraq.

Everything and anything you want to know (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:08:58 PM EST

about that is here for the asking.


So you (none / 0) (#15)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:20:50 AM EST

don't know either.


Look up Wile (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:38:37 AM EST

In this thread.


: That's a "bipartisan" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:33 PM EST

plan, not a Democratic one, albeit with Republicans who aren't certifiably insane.

: Interesting (none / 0) (#19)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:16:01 AM EST

I would like to see if the democrat party has endorsed this as their platform.

LOL (none / 0) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:21:34 AM EST

google and the dems foreign policy, ran through china for approval.


You gave up after one search? (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:39:07 AM EST

So (none / 0) (#20)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:17:08 AM EST

you really do not know what the Democrat party foreign policy platform other than out of Iraq is either.


: You saw it when they passed the supplemental (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:27:13 AM EST

Here (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:12:15 PM EST

you go - PDF - pp. 3-16.


This :::was::: a rather large modifier. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:30:03 PM EST

CPC Policy Statement and Position on Iraq
Wednesday February 07, 2007

We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully-funded redeployment plan.
More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President Bush's escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
We believe all appropriations for U.S. military involvement in Iraq must be for the protection of our troops until and during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of this limitation
...
we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, support rescinding the President's Iraq war authority, and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region, while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own petroleum resources.

Great (none / 0) (#25)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:58:52 PM EST

If only the "71 Strong and Growing" part were more true than the "We Cave When Threatened By Our Own Party With Losing Our Seats" part.


: Well (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:18:07 PM EST

14 of them are ok, and will probably keep their seats because they weren't concerned about losing them.

OMG (none / 0) (#12)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:05:12 AM EST

It seems to me the Republicans have been much smarter about recognizing and working the dynamics of coalition politics to create clear and ideologically coherent positions than Democrats have.

Yes they are very unified in their failures. Do we have to list them again? But hey, they're RICH!

Foreign policy is fluid, not rigid.

: Clear in the sense that (none / 0) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:31:27 AM EST

people know what Republicans stand for, and aren't, um, quite sure what Democrats stand for. And ideological in that they've woven a narrative in which all the glaring contradictions in their policies - like between say "family values" while savagely ripping up the social contract that supports them - are neatly enough tucked away to not cause cognitive dissonance in too many voters. Maybe it was the marketing background of so many of their gurus that made it work and that now is causing it to unravel so quickly. Advertising stops working when you can see through the glam and realize you don't really want to buy what someone's selling.
I think Dems have more solid bases for unity or ideological coherence that have deep roots in American society that they're failing to build on, particularly with their progressive wing, who too often get shafted as they did in the arm-twisting over the supplemental.