Even though the NIE could be seen to repudiate the Bush administration’s strategies in the war on terror and in Iraq, at the same time, it’s good news for the pro-endless-war faction of the GOP. It’s apparent that a cornerstone of their domestic political strategy is to constantly threaten Americans with vague references to terrorist attacks (even those based on “gut feelings”), and using the fear they engender to leverage all manner of innovative approaches to re-configuring the balance of power in our government, undermining constitutional rights, engaging in reckless military adventures and providing endless boondoggle opportunities to their corporate friends. For example, never mind if our invasion of Iraq brought Al Qaida in Mesopotamia into existence; the fact that they’re there is the best excuse that our troops can’t leave.

Likewise, if it could be said that Republican policies have worsened the problem of international terrorism, the GOP still comes out ahead. In the perennial logical disconnect that seems to be embedded in our body politic, the GOP is still automatically conferred with the mantle of “strong on defense” (just like they’re always assumed to be better for business, even though statistics show that the economy performs as well or better under Democrats . . . go figure). Even while steadfastly adhering to the currently disastrous anti-terrorist and Iraq war orthodoxy of the Bush administration—and even upping the ante in some cases—candidates like Giuliani, Romney, et al, will automatically be said to hold an edge over their Democratic rivals in the area of national defense. The fact that GOP policies have made us less safe means that we must now live in dire times. And dire times can only mean that we need to elect a strong and resolute Republican to be our president.

It’s like the old joke about the definition of chutzpah: A defendant on trial for murdering his parents who begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.

Oceania was at war with Eurasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Precisely. This is why I have long contended that it is an error for the public perception of the Republican party to be stronger on defense than the Democratic one. The propensity to call the nation to battle at every turn is not the same thing as defense. In fact, it is offense, and might well make the nation less safe. Never has this been more true than during the past two elections when Bush has basically won based upon this misconception. Defending the nation is far more complex than calling up all the troops and sticking them in a quagmire.

GaryW

"Never has this been more true than during the past two elections when Bush has basically won based upon this misconception."

He basically won based on the fact that the majority of voters were stupid. They bought into it.

Fingerpuppet,

The only reason that the GOP might come out ahead by bungling into a quagmire in Iraq which then makes the threat worse, and which then requires more GOP "fixes" (hey, that sounds like Democrats on education, but don't get me started), is if the American people believe that Democrats don't think the terrorist threat even exists.

Would you want a fire department so overzealous that it wrecks half the block while trying to put out a house fire, or would you prefer a fire department whose firehouse alarm bell doesn't even work?

Not a very good choice, is it? But it certainly feels that is the choice facing Americans between the two major parties. I fear that we will have to choose between another ham-fisted, ideology driven Republican or a confused, vascillating "love me" Democrat. That's pretty miserable.

So far, I'm not real impressed. I remember when Pelosi was in the running for Speaker, she was talking about "ensuring that every single package that enters the United States gets inspected" for bombs, nukes, chemicals, etc. That is jaw-droppingly unrealistic and even if it was possible is pathetically inadequate. We need to engage the world, and our enemies, aggressively if necessary. I don't hear that coming from the Democrats. I don't hear them really offering a different approach, but mostly criticizing Bush's nonsense.

Here's another analogy: you train boxers. You've got one giant brute that gets into the ring with no strategy who can only swing wildly. Sometimes he hits the other guy but he gets knocked down a lot. You've got another guy who doesn't even get out of the corner for fear of not having a perfect strategy. Who, as a trainer, would you want to stake your career to?

I am a registered Republican (still) and really want the Democrats to win the White House. Bush has so cynically and so irresponsibly and so selfishly gone out of his way to make this "his" war, the "Republicans'" war for political purposes, that he has enabled the Democrats and liberals to really feel and think that they have no dog in this fight, that peace will break out the moment Bush leaves office. Only if that were so.

We need a Democrat in the White House getting daily terrorist threat briefings; making decisions about how much and how little information to share with the American people; dealing with the realities (now) of an Iran which abets the Taliban and our enemies in Iraq, etc.

We need the whole country to join this war mentally and a president who is willing to keep our enemies on their heels in any way possible, while attempting to modify the sickness in the Middle East which breeds these enemies. So far, unfortunately, I don't believe the Democrats have the balls to do the former, and don't believe the Republicans have the brains to do the latter.

If a Democratic president can do it and establish the party as the "Tough on Defense" party for the next 100 years, God bless them.

No, actually, the average voter is not stupid. One big problem with liberals is their condescension and contempt for the majority of their countrymen - not even Republicans but the unwashed masses in general which they believe are benighted trash. (Note the perrenial threats of liberal celebrities to run off to Europe after every election.) That condescension drips off of them, including so many Democratic politicians, and that doesn't help in the polls.

Dean was a perfect example of this. His entire campaign was based on a platform of "Vote for me you idiots!"

Thanks EarlyBird. I think it’s great (if you don’t mind being categorized as such) to have a genuine political moderate on this board. Each political side has its own assumptions and its own orthodoxies, and I appreciate that you’re fair and honest enough to question even the side that you might otherwise most identify with, and perhaps even have voted for.

It kind of goes back to what I was saying in my post that Democrats seem to be automatically assumed to be weak on national defense. But I’m not quite sure where this comes from, unless going clear back to the post-Vietnam days of Jimmy Carter, where military involvements were viewed with deep suspicion, and we suffered a serious bout of malaise as a nation—not just a hangover from Vietnam, but also the humiliation of the Iran hostage situation and a stagnant economy.

But when did any Democrat in recent memory—aside from someone like Kucinic, perhaps—oppose a vigorous anti-terrorism strategy? Even going back to the pre-9/11 world of the Clinton era, the Democrats seemed to be doing everything that was politically do-able to push back against al Qaeda’s increasingly aggressive actions, even to the point (as I’m sure you remember) of being charged with over-reaction (remember “Wag the Dog?”) by the Republicans of the day. A majority of Democrats have always been supportive of what they saw as the sensible parts of the current administration’s anti-terror strategy, like the Afghanistan campaign and increased funding for homeland security. That’s one of the main reasons they’ve been so critical of diverting resources away from both of these areas. I heard just today that the administration plans to cut homeland security funding to cities by 50% next year, despite complaints that the threats haven’t waned at all. Is any Republican, anywhere, making a peep about this? At least Pelosi’s making some kind of an effort.

I think that many parts of our country have become addicted to belligerent rhetoric, which too often translates into poorly-conceived military over-reactions like Iraq, or the apparent eagerness of some to bomb or invade Iran. You acknowledge the ham-fisted counter-productiveness of these kinds of things, but you still seem automatically suspicious when the rhetorical counterpart—the belligerent rhetoric—is less apparent in the Democrats. I think it’s a bit unfair.

Sadly, we were united as a nation in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and everyone I know in the left, right and center was virtually unanimous in backing the President and the initial Afghanistan campaign. We know what happened next, and how the entire Republican Party—not just Bush, Rove and Cheney—took advantage of the national mood and started slicing and dicing the populace into “patriots” and “al Qaeda-loving traitors” to pursue an agenda that was largely disconnected from the real war on terror, and often from reality itself.

For my own part, I’m looking for someone who’s smart and honest. Regardless of whether they’re currently talking tough, looking presidential, or whatever, with those qualities I can at least be confident that they’ll make the right decisions when the time comes.

Geez. "Smart and honest." It's tragic how, after nearly eight years of Bush, these basic prerequisites for the presidency sound so lofty! Yes, just a president who was smart and leveled with us would be refreshing.

I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to when the Dems became associated with being weak on defense. It was basically in the '72 Democratic convention (or was that '68, when the hippy types invaded and McGovern ran?). It was when the '60s counter-culture kids grew up and ran for office and became congressmen. Before then, Republicans were basically considered head-in-the-sand isolationists, some proudly so, while the Dems were the war leaders, from FDR through LBJ. Some of the biggest anti-communists were Democrats. At the same time, Nixon pursued and achieved detente with China. And after the long post-Vietnam malaise and Carter, we had Reagen.

I think that most people get the fact that we are in a real struggle and it poses some seriously difficult choices. I hope a smart, tough Dem gets into the White House and brings the whole country around to really seeing what's at stake, what we need to do.

Without getting into a whole big debate about how we got into Iraq - I'm sure we agree that we were basically lied into it and that it has been an absolute debacle - I do give credit for Bush wanting to do something big and dramatic post-9/11. I still don't believe that Afghanistan is the center of gravity of the jihadist enemy and consider it a sideshow. I keep hearing that we need to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. We could, after basically taking it on as the 51st state, turn it into Connecticut, and we'd still have not touched the enemy's headquarters. Bush wanted to change the "facts on the ground," and create a massive earthquake in the Arab world, which is where this stuff emanates from. Too bad he did it in the manner he did it, and to the country he did it in.

As someone on this Fray said recently, "Bush talked like Iraq was about WWII; he fought it like Grenada." What a great quote.