Stradegy (sic) [USA Democrats]

[Abdul Alhazred]

From USS Clueless by Sephen den Beste.
This is a from a blog I follow regularly.

Stragedy (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/02/Stragedy.shtml)





Writing in the WaPo, Jim VandHei summarizes the way that the Democrats are trying to settle on a basic platform which will be not be seen as a Republican me-too, while at the same time will also not be seen as radical lunatic-fringe by the American center.


More or less, this:
<ul>
Embrace protectionism
Tax the rich
Increase social spending
Talk about how scary the Republicans are
[/list]



{...snip...}



Me, I only have one question for the Democrats: How do you intend to win this war?



Actually, I must confess I have a second question, which has to be asked before that one: Do you intend to win this war?



Update: Both Tom and Peg point out that there's yet another question which must be asked before either of those: Do you believe we are in a war?


I agree with him on this one, but please click the link before commenting.

[Solitaire]

Except, of course, that one of those two approaches fails to address
the domestic problem of huge numbers of Americans dying in future
terrorist attacks. (Except by advocating socialized medicine.)

:D

P.S. Yeah, the dems offer next to nothing for me to vote for.

[Ignatius]

A good article on the problem and how we got here:

Dem Foreign Policy critique from the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1)

Suggestions from Tom Friedman:


... I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war. I know I could do better. But I want every suicide bomber — from Bali to Baghdad — to understand one thing about a Kerry administration: `You can blow yourselves up from now until next Ramadan, but we'll still be in Iraq. You'll be dead, but we'll still be there. Which part of that sentence don't you understand?'

"I don't say this to be macho-man, Tim. I'm not George Bush. I say this because it's the best way to save American and Iraqi lives. You see, Tim, I identify so strongly with my band of brothers and sisters wearing the American uniform in Iraq. The best way to endanger them is to suggest to the terrorists that there is daylight between me and President Bush — that if he won't run, I will. Well, there is no daylight on ends. A Kerry administration will see that Iraqis get every chance to produce their own representative government.

"But there is daylight on means. You see, Tim, if I were president, I would insist that we have a real policy of energy conservation to enlist every American in this war, by asking each of us to choke off some of the funds going to the Islamist totalitarians. I would immediately invite the leaders of the U.N., Germany, France and NATO to Camp David to rebuild the alliance that won the cold war, so we have the staying power to win this war of ideas in the Muslim world. And I would have my secretary of state out in the Middle East regularly, arguing our case, bolstering our allies and trying to bring about a secure peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

"Oh yes, Tim, my means would be very different. Unlike the Bush team, I understand that just because you have a hammer, not every problem is a nail. It takes more than force to win a war of ideas. But on ends, Tim, let no one have any illusions: a Kerry presidency will pay any price and bear any burden to try to build a decent Iraqi regime in the heart of the Arab world. My making that commitment now is the best way to prove to the terrorists that their actions are futile, and in that way save American and Iraqi lives. Failure to make that commitment would have horrific consequences for U.S. foreign policy.


NT Times column (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists)