the democrats can’t have this both ways. they can talk all they want to about having a strong and smart foreign policy and a better strategy for dealing with terrorism, but their actions don’t suggest that they are serious about implementing one. from opposing common-sense measures like tracking money transfers and bragging about “killing the Patriot Act” to supporting the candidacy of ned lamont, the democrats now controlling the message haven’t found the right one yet. i realize that on some level, the democratic leadership had to support their senate nominee in connecticut. it’s traditional and all that. there’s something else going on with their support of lamont. ned lamont says what the rest of the democrats are afraid to say. it’s a way for the democrats to look more anti-war than they are without making an actual commitment to do what those like ned lamont want to do. this won’t work with the left wing and it doesn’t really work with me.
that’s because the left wing of the democratic party doesn’t believe the war on terror actually exists. they want to harp about the “politics of fear” and so forth. that’s a problem for the democrats if they want to take the battle to the republicans on national security. terrorism is real. it existed before bush. it will exist after bush is gone. you can hate bush all you want to and oppose his iraq policy all you want to, but at some point someone will ask the democrats how they could improve on the current fight against terrorism while taking away some of the very tools used by the brits to stop the recent terror plot in their country. i doubt their answer would reassure voters that they can improve on the record of the bush administration. i am also amazed that many polls rate democrats ahead of republicans on national security when it’s not even clear that the dems have a credible alternative plan on iraq. iraq is a struggle right now, i will admit that, but the democrats can’t figure out how to fix it either.
we have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve those problems. i just don’t see that from the howard dean democrats. from the dnc’s charges that bush is pushing the politics of fear to ned lamont’s suggestion that iran and north korea just need a few more carrots (instead of that big stick) to completely change their minds about their nuclear programs, it’s clear to see that they don’t have a clue about what’s going on in the world today. do we really think appeasing iran’s head loon or the one in north korea would convince them to stop making nukes? NO! of course not. this strategy creates more problems than it solves. howard dean and ned lamont don’t understand this simple truth.
“But even assuming some short-term victories, where will the Democrats be when the war is over and Bush is gone?
Lamont said in his victory speech that the time had come to “fix George Bush’s failed foreign policy.” Yet, as Martin Peretz pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, on Iran, the looming long-term Islamist threat, Lamont’s views are risible. Lamont’s alternative to the Bush Iran policy is to “bring in allies” and “use carrots as well as sticks.”
Where has this man been? Negotiators with Iran have had carrots coming out of their ears in three years of fruitless negotiations. Allies? We let the British, French and Germans negotiate with Iran for those three years, only to have Iran brazenly begin accelerated uranium enrichment that continues to this day.
Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah’s immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: “Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” “
if this view was held only by ned lamont, it could be chalked up to foreign policy inexperience or misguided optimism, but this message sounds way too familiar. the first time we heard it was from former presidential candidate john kerry. it is still wrong today. carrots don’t have much effect without the threat of a stick. the american people didn’t buy kerry’s foreign policy philosophy in 2004, and ned lamont won’t have an easier time selling the same ideas to connecticut voters here in 2006.
the republicans have serious problems going into the november elections, most of which are their own fault, and not all of those problems are related to their views on the iraq war. we all know what those problems are. the democrats, i believe, have created an even bigger problem with their embrace of ned lamont. while it could be considered a significant victory for the combination of the netroots and grassroots effort in connecticut that lamont got the democratic nomination, this is not the end of the story. the netroots and the far left of the democratic party, while celebrating the lamont win, are not yet satisfied.
michael moore now takes aim at kerry, edwards, hillary, and any democrat who at some point had ever supported the iraq war.
the democrats have never been able to marginalize the fringe elements in their party like moore, and don’t seem to be interested in even making the attempt this time. will bush hatred and iraq fatigue be enough to give control back to the democrats? i would have to say that it’s not.
tags: ned lamont, democrats, terrorism
Tell me again, just so’s I understand, what’s the Republican plan?
I knew you were going to say that. 😛 The Republicans need a plan as well, but it doesn’t do any good for the Democrats to simply say that they don’t like what Bush is doing.
Maybe I’m different from the majority of the American people, but I think the Democrats still have to prove that they can be just as tough on terrorists as the Republicans are. Of course, there’s been mistakes made, but at the end of the day, what reason do we have to trust the Democrats with the security of our country?
Oh. It all makes sense now 😉
What reason do we have to trust Republicans? Five years after 9/11, our borders are still not secured. Twice this year alone undercover agents have smuggled dirty bombs through our ports and customs. Three Republican leaders were indicted and one convicted and sitting in prison. The person responsible for 9/11 is still free and planning more attacks. Meanwhile, our troops are burdened down in a country that had absolutely no ties to 9/11, in a war with no end in sight. And gas is over $3/gallon. More of the same doesn’t sound appealing.
I believe the American public is ready for fiscally responsible, coherent, competent government. Republicans had their chance. They failed.
This sounds like a rant to me. 😛
Well, for one thing, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. Maybe that can be chalked up to luck and not as a result of Bush admin policies. Maybe not. But the fact remains that regardless of the reason, there haven’t been any recent attacks here in the US.
I’m with you on the border security concerns. What makes you think the Democrats will do a better job with securing our borders?
Some Republicans are crooks. I’m not sure what this has to do with national security, though.
Osama needs to be captured. So how do we do it? What can we do that we are not doing now? And even if we do capture him, what will change about the war on terror? Probably nothing.
Read that book. I’m only part way through it, but I’m convinced that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected based on what I’ve read so far. We agree that there needs to be a new strategy on Iraq, but no one seems to have a definite idea on what that strategy could be.
What will the Democrats do about high gas prices? Allow drilling in ANWR? Build more oil derricks? I know. Windfall taxes on big oil! It won’t solve the problem (and might even make it worse), but at least Democrats will sleep better at night knowing they punished those big bad oilmen.
I can’t argue about the Republicans and their fiscal irresponsiblity. Unlike you, I am not convinced the Democrats will be any better stewards of our money than the Republicans. The problem, as I’ve said before, is not necessarily one party or the other — it’s the lack of accountability with spending. Where does the money go? Does it go to projects that work? Are the programs necessary? Neither party wants to be accountable with federal money. If the Democrats win, I don’t see that changing.
Of course it’s a rant. A rant with a lot of truth. 🙂
If it’s just attacks on American soil we’re talking about, we weren’t attacked on American soil when Clinton was president either. So Democrats do have a track record of being “tough” on terrorism and a track record with results. The largest terrorist plot ever foiled on American soil was done so under Clinton’s watch on New Year’s Eve 1999.
On border security, the Democrats can easily do better because the Republican proposal/solution was amnesty. That’s crazy. All the Dems would have to do is fund the INS better and that would be leaps and bounds over what the Republicans have given us. The other day Bush said he felt like he has solved the immigration problems. Makes no sense to me. Having a national debate to where the public is allowed to ponder would be doing more than the Republicans have delivered.
Maybe if Republicans weren’t so busy trying to stuff their own pockets and accepting bribes, then they could focus on national security. Instead, they’d rather sit in jail. They don’t care about national security.
Our own government (Bush’s government) concluded with the 9/11 Commission that there were no credible links between Iraq and 9/11. I can only take Bush at his words.
Here’s a Democratic Plan for Iraq and national security. Maybe this is what you’ve been asking to see, it’s just not been widely circulated, which I think is a very bad move by the Dems.
Gas was $30/barrel when the Democrats had power. One thing is certain, Bush and Cheney make millions each year from oil. If Clinton made one penny from oil, or remotely any money from high gas prices, he would have been impeached. The same skepticism should be applied to Bush & Co.
One thing that would force oil companies to stop inflating prices would be to stop providing million dollar tax cuts to Big Oil when they are already making on average $8 billion profit every quarter. And the most logical thing to do would be to end our dependancy on foreign oil and find new and renewable sources of energy. And yes, those oil men wouldn’t like any of that.
On fiscal responsibility, I have no doubts the Dems could do better. I do recall large surplusses numerous years in a row when Clinton was president. Bush took the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit in history. Besides, even if the Dems run up a $100 billion deficit, it would still be much smaller and the country would be in much better shape fiscally than what 5 years of Republican rule has brought. Heck a $200 billion deficit would still be much better– I have complete faith the Dems could do at least that 😉
Sorry for a second rant, but I don’t have a blog anymore, so I gotta go somewhere. And you are always so kind 🙂
Oh, and I promise I’ll get me a copy of the book. I read a review on it the other day.
Ooops. 1993 World Trade Center bombing occured February 26, 1993, one month after Clinton took office. So we were attacked on American soil while Clinton was in office. My bad.
You can’t possibly be saying that Clinton has been tougher on terrorists than Bush has been. It’s a great thing that he stopped a terrorist attack, but that alone doesn’t prove that he was tough on terrorism or that the Democratic party has a strong record when it comes to the war on terror. If your criticism of Bush is that he hasn’t been pro-active enough in dealing with terrorism and terrorists (and I’m inferring that from your previous comments about Hezbollah and the Middle East), then I don’t see how Clinton’s policies were any significant improvement over what Bush has been doing.
Amnesty was something Bush wanted. Frist went along with it, and believe me, he got an earful from the local folks here in SC when he came here to support Ralph Norman. I think he got the message loud and clear. It’s probably difficult to oppose the President on something like this, especially when many of your fellow Republicans see nothing wrong with amnesty. Bush is wrong when he says that he solved the problem of illegal immigration. We agree on this point.
If I recall what the 9/11 commission said correctly, it sounds more like they couldn’t prove any link between Iraq and 9/11. Maybe there wasn’t a link there. But it’s hard to me to buy the idea that Iraq had no involvement with terrorists at all, whether they were Al Qaeda or any other kind of terrorist. There were multiple reasons to suspect Iraq of nefarious activity.
You know who else makes money from big oil and Halliburton? Ned Lamont. At least he used to. He had a huge chunk of Halliburton stock. To be fair, I’m not sure if he still has Halliburton stock.
In addition to the profits of those who previously (Michael Moore) and currently hold Halliburton stock, there is also the substantial cut collected on that $3.00/gallon price by local and state governments in gas taxes.
I don’t think you can completely credit the Democrats for the low gas prices. I don’t seem to recall any specific policy of the Democrats that would work toward energy independence or finding new and renewable sources of energy. Maybe you can provide an example of such a policy.
You certainly do have low expectations for the Democrats and spending. So do I…but mine are MUCH LOWER. 😛
Today, Iraq is a terrorist haven and breeding ground and in the midst of a civil war. Iran, a country with extreme ties to al Qaeda, has atomic weapons and is making more. The same applies to North Korea. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, is as strong as it has ever been. Bin Laden is still free. Pakistan, probably where bin Laden is hiding, and where the recent plot to blow up airplanes heading from London to America originated and was financed, Bush calls one of our best allies in the war on terror. And I’m supposed to believe Bush is tough on terrorism? I think he’s totally clueless on terrorism. Isn’t he still on his second vacation of the year? The only terrorist attack Bush can boast of stopping is one the Brits were in the lead and MI5 administered.
I believe Democrats would have a much more effective approach to fighting terrorism. I absolutely believe that. Call me a dreamer though 🙂
Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission report explicitly states there was “no collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” And that there was no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with al Qaeda in “developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” The full report is here
Of course Iraq had involvement with terrorists, just not the ones responsible for 9/11. But, even if we are to assume that links to terrorism, whether al Qaeda or not, is enough to warrant invasion, then what about Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? There are no two greater supporters and financiers of world terrorism than those two countries. Or even Pakistan, which is a total hornets nest right now. Even if we are to use links to terrorism, minimal or not, as guidelines to invade, Iraq would still be way down the list; and militias in Montana might be higher on that list if we are to consider nefarious activity as qualifications.
Ned Lamont is not President of the United States of America. Right now, he’s only a candidate and not a public official of any kind. He can make money however he wants. But when nearly the entire president’s administration makes millions from inflated oil prices, something’s not right. Competent government can go a long way in keeping gas cheap.
My state makes $0.15/gallon on gasoline taxes. It’s been the same since 1994. Gas was about a $1.15/gallon in ’94. The state’s obviously aren’t inflating their taxes.
An example of good policy that Democrats adhered to to keep Big Oil under control was not to provide them with huge, huge tax breaks, so that the oil companies would be held accountable for their product and their services. Just like every other regulatory company is.
You are correct, I don’t have very high expectations for Democrat spending, but I don’t have to. The Bush deficit is almost $500 billion. Anyone, on a bad day, with any economic sense could beat that.
But the chances of us seeing a Democratic government any time soon isn’t a reality either. We’re stuck the way we are for at least two more years 🙁
Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we got there. Iran and North Korea have been a threat to the world for years. What aggressive steps did Clinton take to deal with any of these countries? Wasn’t it the Clinton-Gore administration that actually HELPED North Korea get nuclear material?
Pakistan’s a tricky thing, because the Brits needed their help to stop the recent terror plot. There is a price to pay even for limited cooperation by the Pakistani government. They won’t allow our military to go in there and find Bin Laden. I’m not sure how Bush could change this.
If you’re going to say that Clinton has done a better job dealing with all the above threats, give me some evidence of it.
I’m not sure we were ready to take on Iran directly, or that we are now. Even if we give the country back to the Democrats and they manage to pass all these lovely energy independence bills with incentives for alternative fuels, the implementation will take awhile. In the meantime, we have to get oil from somewhere, and Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that has it.
You’re right Ned Lamont isn’t President of the United States…and I couldn’t be happier that it’s not even a possibility. I bring up Lamont and Michael Moore because you are suggesting that only Republicans profit from big oil relationships, and that’s simply not the case. If you think that big oil is taking unfair advantage of world events to consciously gouge the consumer, then congratulations. You agree with Bill O’Reilly and his stupid conspiracy theories.
As for the gas taxes, your state is probably an exception to the rule. I will admit I don’t have hard data on this, so I can’t prove that gas taxes contribute a significant amount to costs. I do remember seeing a breakdown of the cost somewhere though, and it seemed to suggest what I said there.
How much do you think big oil executives should make? Do you think that there should be a cap on their salaries? And what makes you think that big oil would be more accountable if they paid higher taxes?
I’ll answer those questions for myself. There’s something wrong with the government telling people how much they can be paid. I could see a situation where in the case of big oil, the CEO salaries could be tied to stock price and performance, so that when the company makes a profit, the stockholders also share in that profit. I don’t see how paying CEOs less or raising the taxes on the oil companies would lower our prices at the pump. In fact, higher taxes would make gasoline prices higher, not lower.
So you think the Dems will lose in November? From your keyboard to God’s ears…lol.
Iraq was not a haven before we got there. Not one single terrorist on 9/11 came from Iraq. Not one single terrorist arrested after the 7/11 bombings in London came from Iraq. The recent plot foiled by the Brits– not one single person arrested came from Iraq. A vast majority of the insurgents fighting our forces, and the Iraqi people, are foreign terrorists infiltrating a sovereign country. Besides Saddam Hussein, name me one Iraqi terrorist.
Actually, the deal Clinton brokered with the North Koreans in 1994 ceased plutonium production to zero. Here’s a report detailing the exact progress of North Korea’s nuclear program since 1988. Read for yourself and see. The report clearly indicates that under George W. Bush, North Korea has produced enough plutonium for 4-6 bombs. Not the case under Clinton. They were allowed a light water reactor, but not one bomb. Besides, the 2005 Bush brokered deal is the exact same deal Clinton did in 1994. So it must be a good one, right?
From what I can tell, you’re saying that 9/11 changes nothing. That even though 15 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, “we have to get oil from somewhere, and Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that has it.” So instead we invade a country with no ties whatsoever. Yes we need oil, but there are many things we could do. And the Republicans have had five years and failed.
I never suggested only Republicans profit from big oil. Not at all. I did suggest that the President of the United States and his adminsitration personally profits millions from it. If Clinton did the same, he’d be impeached.
It’s my understanding that every state sets a fixed tax on gasoline. I don’t know of any state that floats a gas tax. No matter the price of gas, whether it’s $3/gallon or not, the state only makes $0.15/gallon or whatever the tax may be. I’ve never heard of any state doing it different. I could be wrong, and it wouldn’t be the first time. I’m sure I could find another link stating my case, but you wouldn’t visit it either 😉
And please, tell me where I say anything about telling people how much money they should make? Where do I state anything vaguely close to that? By providing Big Oil with big tax breaks, the government only sends a very frank message to those companies that they can gouge prices and yet still receive the blessing of the government. I’m saying hold Big Oil accountable just like every other regulated business is held. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxes do send signals.
But on top of all that, in complete disregard of the official findings of the US government, and even the president’s own admission, that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with carrying out 9/11, you still believe that Iraq had a hand in it, and you’re accusing me of believing in conspiracy theories?
I do find it a huge feat for the Democrats to take back either the house or senate this November. I think we stand a much better chance of winning the presidency in ’08 than either chamber of congress now. But, as I say a lot, I’ve been wrong before. And I’m not a neocon, so hardly do I believe that God obeys me.
We disagree about the nature of Iraq’s terrorism problem, but I do acknowledge your point about the 9/11 and 7/11 terrorists.
I stand corrected about Clinton and North Korea. I asked the question because I honestly didn’t know the answer to it, not because I was trying to pick a fight. Whatever my intention was there, I obviously failed. 🙁
I’m not saying that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan should get a pass on supporting terrorists. I’m saying that we can’t invade every country with a terrorist problem. We don’t have the military capability to do that. It would also be difficult to get the UN to go along with any planned invasion of either country.
I don’t think you could impeach Clinton for simply profiting from big oil. I also don’t think that big oil is intentionally gouging people at the pump. THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT HAPPENING. Bill O’Reilly disagrees with me on this, and so do you. I do apologize for the way that sounded because I didn’t intend to insult you at all. I was simply venting a little bit, because I’m tired of hearing that everything is the fault of big oil, or Bush, or Republicans.
It seems like you have unintentionally hit the majority of things that tick me off about the Democratic party line. The thing about making oil companies pay higher taxes is that the consumer ends up paying a higher price for their gasoline because the cost is passed along to them. Hold those companies accountable. Absolutely do that. But I don’t see this as the best way to provide this accountability. What about regular audits? Wouldn’t that be more effective?
You could be right about the gas taxes. You are right about almost everything else. 😛 So I concede…I give up…you win.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I’ve always been skeptical of them. I never said that I believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. What I said was that I thought that Iraq knew about it, and that Iraq had some connection with Al Qaeda.
I think that’s a reasonable position to have. 🙂
I’m not a neo-con either…and I resent the implication. 😛 I have been a jerk, however, and I am sorry. Don’t be mad at me.
You can argue all day about who was better, who did what in the PAST. The question is, Who will do better in the future? GOP=”Stay The Course”, Dems=”Do What’s Best Under The Cicumstances”.
Oh my mercy, don’t apologize 🙂
I take everything we say here as being only here. Politics is about disagreement, and it’s perfectly alright to disagree. It would be so boring if everyone agreed all the time.
I’m not always right, and I don’t ever want to be. I’m wrong quite a bit. A lot of the reasons why I say and feel the way I do about certain issues can be narrowed down to passion and conviction. I think you and I are very alike in that regard. That’s certainly nothing to defend or argue.
What can sum me up the best is that I do have a lot of faith in Democratic governance, it’s their campaigning I doubt. That doesn’t make me right or wrong and the same applies to you. I’m certainly no where near mad at you, and never will be.
I will say, though, that I don’t think I called you a neocon, I just said that I wasn’t one. I do apologize for the forwardness and insulting character of the comment.
You keep my attention very well Lisa. I do commend you for having a blog that is allowed to exchange ideas with reason. I wouldn’t keep coming back if it wasn’t so interesting in here all the time.
You are not a jerk. And I hope that you can see my personality in my comments– though I’m sure it’s hard to sometimes. I’m not always so serious all the time, outside of the blogworld at least. I used to write legislation, and that can be a very succint style of writing. Succint writing can often times come off as rude and abrupt when reading. I don’t mean for it to be that way at all. Sometimes I still write like that. Writing in blogs has helped me write differently and more inviting. I’m still working on it, however.
I will try harder to do such. But don’t worry about me on this end. I don’t take any of it personal.
It sounded like you were mad at me. I can certainly understand your reaction to even being in the same sentence with Bill O’Reilly. 😛
We can certainly agree that Democratic campaigning has been a serious problem for them. Unlike you, however, I think that the problem with the Congress today is not that we don’t have enough Democrats, but that we need new Republicans who are serious about cutting spending. 🙂
(I know…good luck with that, right?)
Maybe you can explain something to me about writing legislation. It’s something I’ve never understood. Why does it take so many words to say the equivalent of “the sun is shining”? It seems to me that more people would actually read the legislation they are voting on if it was a few hundred pages shorter.
You’re not a jerk either, and I’ve never gotten that impression. But I think I could have worded what I said a bit better.