It's National Security, Stupid!

http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/articles/rosner_blueprint041503.pdf


It's National Security, Stupid!



Americans are more worried today about their safety from foreign attack than at any time since the Cuban missile
crisis. Competence and leadership on national security has again become a threshold test for America's politicians
and parties. It is a test Democrats are losing. By an outsized margin, the American public trusts Republicans over
Democrats when it comes to protecting America. This was a key factor in the drubbing Democrats took in the 2002 midterm elections.

SNIP



Unless addressed soon, the Democratic security deficit threatens to become an even bigger
liability in the 2004 presidential campaign.


Democrats are rightfully angry that White House senior political adviser Karl Rove used national security issues as
a political weapon in 2002. But, in many ways, they have only themselves to blame, and they are paying the price
for neglecting foreign policy. Fixing the problem requires more than fielding a presidential candidate who can
speak credibly about these issues. Democrats must also make a long-term investment to become a party that the
American people trust to protect them. The first step for Democrats is to stop taking refuge in three fallacies.
The first fallacy is that Democrats can win solely on domestic issues. Many Democrats still suffer from the illusion
that they can return to power by focusing only on areas where the party holds an advantage with voters -- Social
Security, health care, unemployment insurance, and other domestic priorities.
They're wrong. A January Democracy Corps survey showed that Republicans enjoyed a 3-to-1 edge on homeland
security, and more than a 2-to-1 edge on "keeping America strong." Margins of this magnitude on these issues
block many voters from casting their ballots on the domestic issues, where they trust Democrats more.
The second fallacy is that President Bush and the GOP are invincible. Some Democrats argue that the Republican
national security advantage is so large that their party can never level the playing field. Instead of developing a
credible alternative, they hope the president will falter and create a new opening.

SNIP


Wrong again. Such a view is not
only irresponsible, but unnecessary. While the GOP's national security edge is real, it is based as much on
perceived Democratic weakness as on Republican strength. The vaunted Bush national security team's record is
mixed at best. Indeed, it is hard to recall a national security team as divided and at times dysfunctional, with its
record of inconsistency, self-isolation, and missed opportunities.
Consider: On homeland security, Americans remain dangerously exposed to a new, potentially catastrophic, threat.


SNIP


The third fallacy is the belief that simply criticizing the Bush administration without offering a compelling and
viable alternative is a strategy. It's not. Although this administration's record on national security is vulnerable,
simply carping about its tactics won't do the job. Because Democrats are often seen to be ducking the tough
questions on the use of force, Americans wonder whether Democrats are up to the job of protecting them.



SNIP

A new Democratic foreign policy must start with homeland security. The administration was right to pick up the
call, first sounded by Democrats, to create a Department of Homeland Security. But it is refusing to provide the
needed financial support to states and localities cash-starved by the recession. Democrats should insist on a budget
that provides resources for first responders, security at our ports, and other crucial forms of homeland defense.
In addition to bolstering our defenses, we also need to go on the offensive to address the root causes of terrorism.
To be sure, such a strategy must have a military component. But terrorism is primarily a political and ideological
problem, and the war against terrorism will be won as much on the political as on the military battlefield. The
United States therefore needs to focus far more on political pre-emption.

I don't agree with everything written, but I do believe if we don't come up with a STRONG national defense platform, and convince Americans we are willing to use force whenever it is our best interests to do so (even based on imperfect intelligence), we are gonna have another 4 years of this asshole.

Clinton and Greenberg got along great but they obviously had many differences, especially on political matters.

Though it should be said, Greenberg did a poll the night the Lewinsky thing broke, and Greenberg told him, if he came out, truthful or not and just admitted it, it would blow over in 2 months... shoulda listened to that one!

If the US Government would stay the hell out of other countries and people's business...We would not be threatened with attack! Plain and simple. If we did not support brutal Dictators ala' the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam, the house of Saud etc etc etc. Then we would not need worry about them.

The Democrats and the Republicans since the 50's have created the problems we face today. The DLC is hand in glove with PNAC as evidenced by their voting records. DLC and RNC in bed together for their enrichment and our destruction.

Wage peace and you will fine peace...Wage war...well we see the results right now. We spend way to much money now on defense. I say cut the budget in half and spend the money on the people not the "Millitary Industrial Congressional Complex"