Dems and National Security

There's a great post here at AMERICABlog. The bulk of the post is just background info about your normal, run-of-the-mill Bush incompetence, this time with regard to cutting the size of the military in a time of war just to fudge the numbers. The money part, though, is the last paragraph.

Democrats there is a HUGE, ENORMOUS and MASSIVE opportunity for you here. A sustained campaign by the nation's Democratic Governors opposing the National Guard cuts paired with a plan in the House and Senate to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for the war in Iraq could reap you enormous political hay in the future. In one move you go from being a party on the defensive in national security to the offense. You don't get handed a whole lot of opportunities like that. Pick a spokesperson now - only ONE and get them on TV as THE point person on this issue - and get a sustained PR campaign plan ready that you can launch after Alito. It'd be the right next move. Filibusterer Alito through the State of the Union and then move on to this and pretty soon it will be Spring, right in time to begin the 2006 cycle with a weaker opponent...

We already know the GOP is going to run on national security again for the mid-terms. Now is the time to take the wind out of that sail. The only reason the GOP sounds better on national security is because of talk, talk, talk. The facts just don't bear out the myth.

For example, they constantly hammered Clinton, claiming he was cutting the post-Cold War military to the point of putting the country in danger. But did you notice what Bush is doing?

President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades

The lowest level in three decades. In thirty years. Since the seventies. Before Reagan. Three decades, that is. If the Dems don't jump on this, they really are missing out on a debate-framing opportunity, I think.

Theocons

And they say Bin Laden gets his talking points from the left?

"The United States joined forces with Iran, Egypt, China, Zimbabwe and Cameroon to not only prevent [the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Danish Association of Gays and Lesbians] from joining, but to prevent them from even getting a hearing on their application to join."

My country, actively pursuing a reputation for repression and fear.

No More Mister Nice Senator

So will they or won't they?

Most people believe the Senate Democrats will not filibuster Alito. And why do they believe this? Because the Democrats are holding to their most self-destructive trait: Fear of the people. They believe that if they filibuster, the American public will somehow turn on them as fringe lunatics and boot them out of Washington at the next election. I believe they are wrong about this and I believe they should filibuster for the following two reasons:

1. Alito has shown his views to be outside the mainstream. Let's not kid ourselves: He will vote to overturn Roe if given the chance. Now, I know that Roe has become way too much of a touchstone issue for judicial appointments, but when 66% of the people believe something should be legal, and that legality has been upheld time after time by court after court, then going into this with an agenda to overturn it is outside the mainstream. This is not to mention his very dangerous notions about executive authority. The Executive branch already pretty much controls the Legislative branch. Do we want it controlling the Judicial branch as well? A filibuster would give the American public an opportunity to hear these types of issues debated in a highly dramatized manner. And drama is what it takes to get people's attention these days.
2. The response to the filibuster will be for the Republicans to change the rules in the middle of the game. The filibuster is a long-standing procedural tool for the minority party. The Democrats wouldn't be breaking the rules by using it. But the Republicans would be changing the rules by abolishing it. The drawback is that this would allow some fucking lunatics to be appointed to the bench over the next couple of years, at least, but Republican control of the government won't last forever (unless we let it). So the advantages would be an impression on the public that the Dems have finally sprouted some cojones and the creation of a useful talking point about crybaby Republicans who change the rules to get their way.

I really think it's the left that is eyeing this move more critically than the right. Have the grassroots convinced the establishment that what is needed is balls? Or will they persist in shying away from battles? We'll know soon enough.

Bush Endorses Bin Laden's Threats

Junior:

"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it."

Now who's using whose talking points? Sounds to me like Bush is really leveraging Bin Laden's "fear factor" to the full. Now, do you think any of the talking heads will mention it?

...

Keep Your Fingers Crossed...

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

Liar

Karl Rove:

President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.

Some important Democrats? Name one. Any one. Actually, name anyone, Democrat or Republican, important or not, who thinks it's not in our national security interest to listen in on Al Qaeda calls.

Rove is not stupid. He's just lying. He knows no one disagrees with that stupid fucking straw man. The issue is that the President broke the law. There are laws in place for monitoring Al Qaeda communication and George W. Bush broke them. Plain and simple.

Now if a Democrat tells an obvious lie like the one in the quote, Tim Russert will ask every single person on his show whether they agree with it, whether it was appropriate to say, whether he should apologize, etc.

Will anyone ask Republicans the question? Do you believe Karl Rove when he says that Democrats don't want to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda calls? Do you believe it is appropriate for Karl Rove to make statements like this? Do you believe Karl Rove should apologize for making accusations like this?

What bullshit.

Wrong

Karl Rove:

"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Now I know the administration has lost the map to reality, but I can't think of a single thing the Republicans have gotten right. From WMDs to troop levels to the Iraqi post-invasion plan to disaster response to Medicare prescription drug plans to Social Security reform to Terry Schiavo to Valerie Plame to Jack Abramoff to torture to warrantless wiretapping to law (vis-a-vis Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay) to anything else in the last five years. In every single instance, it seems, they've been consistently wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now maybe the Dems have been right part of the time and wrong part of the time, or maybe they've been right most of the time or all of the time. But what difference would it make, when they don't control any of the levers of power? In my biased view, most of the Dems have been on the right side of almost all the issues over the last five years. Hopefully someone will point this out during the campaign season in contrast to Mr. Rove's comments.

Administrivia

Looking through my sitemeter reports, I found something interesting. Apparently, someone in India ended up on my site by Googling for "wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum".

Sure enough, if you Google "wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum" on Indian Google, my site is the first one to pop up.



So, apparently, through no effort of my own, I have become the Internet's go-to guy for wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum, if you are in India. If you have any questions about wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum or need further information about wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum, please poke around the site. Also, I suggest listening to some Chopin.

Carry on.

Now is the Time to Fight

Greenwald nails it:

If Democrats are unwilling to fight for these principles, what are they willing to fight for? And if Democrats crawl away from this battle, meekly convincing themselves before even engaging it that they are destined to lose and therefore shouldn’t even bother to try, how can Democrats possibly object when they are perceived as being weak, irresolute, and afraid of taking a stand for their beliefs?

Bold mine.

He's Mister Short Term Memory

Yesterday, from Reuters:

Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

February 2003, one month before the invasion, from the New York Times:

"We are ready to confront the United States," said Halima Nebi, 57, matriarch of a family forced by poverty to pack 21 people into one apartment in Saddam City. "We will use stones, bricks, guns, our own hands."

Incompetence

As reported at TPM Cafe:

“Shortly before the war, when Administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, Administration spokesmen quickly distanced themselves from those numbers,” points out Professor Stiglitz. “But in retrospect, it appears that Lindsey’s numbers represented agross underestimate of the actual costs.”

Will the general public remember this when the elections roll around? Can the Democrats please help them remember?