Without some kind of national security platform, how can we win in 2004?

Please, no flames... I want to know what you think about this, but in a civilized manner.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think Head-Rush Limbaugh of the EIB (Excrement In Broadcasting) Network may be right about this present situation for our political party.



1) What good is being staunchly anti-war, since we already invaded Iraq and cannot reverse it? It's done. Being against it might make us feel better, but it won't change a thing.

2) All of this talk about "Well yeah, Saddam was a bad guy and I'm glad he's gone but..." Isn't going to bring the voters who are on the fence over to our side. I just don't think it will work for us.

3) Bush has milked the fear-mongering for every drop he can get, and will continue to do so, up to the (s)election and even beyond if he wins. Unfortunately, the fear-mongering is probably going to end up working for him when it comes to those voters who are undecided. Sadly, the American sheeple will buy it, hook, line, and sinker I'm afraid.



What can we do to counter this? Plenty can happen between now and the (s)election but I don't have a good feeling about it at all. Tell me something that will make me feel better...

is to completely ABOLISH the 'patriots acts' and everything else bushco has signed. Then put things back exactly as Clinton had them. Only a moron would keep anything of bushco's.

for bribing the idiot in the White HOuse.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1. We have troops in Iraq so the question is where do we go from here? We can't call "undo".

2. The UN doesn't want to move in until the place is safe so saying that we'll turn things over to them is just not feasable.

3. Pull out? I don't think it will sell but if no progress is made that could change.

The best thing is to forget about staying there until they get free elections since that could take too long. Set up a tribal council of the major parties and then turn over the gov't to them.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecid=900020&contentid=252144

According to a poster here, Kerry's on board with this.

I think Edwards is really on to something here.

If only you had been listening you would know better than to think that the Democratic party is strictly "staunchly anti-war"

Here for example, is part of Howard Dean's national security platform:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

I will not divide the world into us versus them. Rather, I will rally the world around fundamental principles of decency, responsibility, freedom, and mutual respect. Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world.

I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part; winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.

My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:

First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
Fifty-five years ago, President Harry Truman delivered what was known as the Four Point speech. In it, he challenged Democrats and Republicans alike to come together to build strong and effective international organizations, to support arrangements that would spur global economic recovery, to join with free people everywhere in the defense of human liberty, and to draw upon the genius of our people to help societies who needed help in the battle against hunger and illness, ignorance, and despair.

Harry Truman believed that a world in which even the poorest and most desperate had grounds for hope would be a world in which our own children could grow up in security and peace not because evil would then be absent from the globe, but because the forces of right would be united and strong.

Harry Truman had faith as I have faith, and as I believe the American people have faith, that if we are wise enough and determined enough in our opposition to hate and our promotion of tolerance, in our opposition to aggression and our fidelity to law, we will have allies not only among governments but among people everywhere.

Such an alliance can never be beaten.

The creation of such an alliance will be my goal if I am entrusted with the presidency of the United States. Because, this is what will keep America strong. This is what reflects the best in the American people. And this is the core of the national security message that I will be carrying to all of America throughout this campaign: I am committed to working constructively with friends and allies around the globe to help people in every corner of every continent to live in freedom, prosperity, and peace


there now intelsucks, don't you feel better, or are you still afraid?

Because it's a restatement of PNAC.

And this is the core of the national security message that I will be carrying to all of America throughout this campaign: I am committed to working constructively with friends and allies around the globe to help people in every corner of every continent to live in freedom, prosperity, and peace.

I recall that "your party" likes to bring up Dean skiing in Aspen, too bad he had a bad back instead of a heart murmer.

I don't understand, because it sounds more like a restatement of the Kucinich approach. Please differentiate Kucinich's views from Dean's statements here.

I will not divide the world into us versus them. Rather, I will rally the world around fundamental principles of decency, responsibility, freedom, and mutual respect. Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world.

I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part; winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.

It's even worse than I previously thought.:puke: We're screwed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As far as your statement about me being screwed. I'll just leave you twisting in the wind.

twist this in the wind.

I seek to restore the best traditions of American leadership. Leadership in which our power is multiplied by the appeal of democratic ideals and by the knowledge that our country is a force for law around the world, not a law unto itself.

You aren't going to rope me in with your insults, or weak attempts at such.

I do not attempt to insult you, unless you think that turning your own comment to me back on to you qualifies as an insult.

If so, you are the primary insulter and the rope came from your weak corral. Is it high noon yet?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What a joke! I'm not retracting anything. Dean will shoot his mouth off again, as he has already done before... Like "Hamas are just soldiers in a war". Brilliant! Smashing! Political genius! He just got every suicide bomber's vote with that statement.

Whatever babzilla, vote for Dean if that's what floats your boat. I won't be voting for him.

just don't try to infer that Dean has come up with his foreign policy ideas in 2 weeks.

That is just not true and you know it as well as anyone else on this board does.

As far as the "suicide bomber's" vote statement goes, you are on your own with that one. In the original post you requested that no-flames be involved in this thread, I see you have had a change of heart.

Good luck with your advocacy.

I try not to get into it with people when I come over here, but it ends up happening almost every time. That's why I can only take so much of GD in either form.

To be completely honest with you, I'm not sure who I support yet. I kind of liked Kerry some months ago... I'm not sure what happened to him. I guess maybe it's Clark now. I really don't know. :shrug:

do you now understand that the Dem party has a formidable national security platform policy?

to the masses... Or maybe it has, and I've missed it. I'm still kind of new here, and don't have as much time to follow all of this as much as I would like to. I don't have cable tv, and all we have here is Reich wing talk radio to listen to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Governor Dean's National Security Platform doesn't answer the question asked, which can't be answered until the convention when the platform is hammered out.

And Governor Dean is NOT the Democratic Party.

that Dems can't compete against Bush in the realm of national security.

Any self-respecting Democrat knows that that is complete and utter bullshit. I would think that the Clark supporters would be especially wary of this arguement since that seems to be the most compelling issue that they have in their corner.

I do not claim that Dean is the Democratic party, I merely posted part of his foreign policy ideas to show that my candidate does indeed have strong ideas concerning national security.

Does Dean's website have a course in "evolving" ???

Don't bother here's the redirect :): http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com

;-)

:evilgrin:

you are too good!

Promoting Dean's national security policies as the democratic platform?

Claiming that the Dem's have a national security platform?

Merely responding to the ignorant arguement that the Democratic Party has no kind of national security platform.

Which one is the one that I sounded like Windnsea and where is the beauty?

what did I sound like I was doing?

What does it sound like when I put a windanseashell up to my ear? Will I hear the sound of the ocean or something else? Do tell.

Because they can.

It was under a Democrat that we led the world to stop Hitler, it was under a Democrat that we formed NATO & the UN. It was under a Republican government that we got COMPLEATLY bogged down in Vietnam (yes Dems played a part in that too, but it goes to show that the Repubs didn't do any better with it). The Department of Homeland Security is a JOKE under Bush, he has consistently underfunded it and it's greatest achievement at this point has been to establish a multi-level color scheme and encourage people to shop more.

Democrats have (and still do) have legislation in the "hopper" of both the Senate and the House that will address the issues of National Security that are currently being ignored by the Bush administration***. DeLay and his drones will not allow it to come up for a vote. Instead we are told that another tax cut will solve all of our problems. This is NOT the way to run a country and until Democrats (including all of the activists) stop admitting weakness on the topics of the day and start fighting for the incredible ideas that ARE OUT THERE, nothing is going to change.

***The plan would increase cargo inspection at major ports, equipping commerical airplanes with counter measures to Surface to Air missles that are the known favorite of al Qaeda; streamline federal-state-local information sharing; and to increase staffing and support for the Coast Guard as they now have added duties under the Dept. of Homeland Security.***

I keep reading posts that we have to come together, but no one wants to actually do it. It's all about jumping on the bandwagon and joining the movement but if you really want to change things, stop whining that Dems can't do it. That type of attitude only leads to the continuation of a FALSE sterotype.

:bounce:I'll jump on that bandwagon anytime.

There are many government agencies, well established and capable to maintain our security. The failure of this administration is its inability to coordinate and focus those agencies effectively.

Further, a role of the Federal government is to maintain effective diplomatic ties with other nations in the world. Effective diplomacy recognizes national interests and balances those interests with a vital by-product: objective, real time information. That information can be vital to national security.

This administration has faulted established diplomacy and relied on dubious info, at best, in it's relations with the Middle East.

The war on terror is, arguably, a result of those failures.

Wesley Clark's background and qualifications make him uniquely qualified to develop and implement a national security plan. His most recent book "Winning Modern Wars" discusses the difference between today's military and homeland security concerns, versus the concerns of yesterday.

Large numbers of moderate Democrats, Independents, and dissatisfied Repulicans realize we have a special opportunity in electing this man President. Hopefully, the Democratic Party is wise enough to give these people a choice in the general election.

to implement his policies. He KNOWS what he's talking about and he knows how to get things done.

General Wesley K. Clark
• West Point Valedictorian
• Oxford University Masters Degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics
• Rhodes Scholar
• Vietnam Veteran
• Four Star General
• NATO Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) - Kosovo
• Board Chairman Wavecrest
Technologies
• CNN Analyst
• Author


http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

<snip>Wes Clark's strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:


End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed-in Iraq and throughout the world.

Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. General Clark will call a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Create a new international authority. The Coalition Provisional Authority, which is the American-led de facto government of Iraq, should be replaced. But the United Nations is neither able nor willing to assume the daunting task of governing Iraq. General Clark would create a new international structure to govern Iraq-the Iraqi Reconstruction and Democracy Council-similar to the one formed in Bosnia. The interim government would have representatives from the European Union, the United States, neighboring countries and others who support our efforts to build a democratic Iraq.

Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. If we take these steps, we can expect NATO countries to contribute around 50,000 troops. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also get Arab countries in the region to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq. <snip>

There's a lot more to his Iraq stradegy....please read it.

Then, there's this:

<snip>Strategy for Addressing the Threat Posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network pose one of the greatest threats to the United States. More than two years after President Bush said he would find bin Laden -- "dead or alive" -- the United States continues to hunt for Osama bin Laden and many of the other leaders of Al Qaeda. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and misguided efforts, bin Laden and Al Qaeda continue to pose a great threat to the U.S., our friends and allies, and various other states. Wes Clark proposes a three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and destroying the Al Qaeda network.


Press Saudi Arabia to work with U.S. forces to create a joint U.S.-Saudi commando force.
This joint U.S.-Saudi commando force would work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.
The Saudi regime is as responsible as anyone for the rise of Al Qaeda. With the bombings in Saudi Arabia over the last months, the Saudis have seen first-hand the destructive forces of the Al Qaeda network.
With Saudi help, Pakistani authorities and Islamic leaders in the territories would be encouraged to strengthen efforts to find bin Laden.
This is not without precedent; the Saudis provided substantial forces to the coalition that ejected Saddam Hussein from Kuwait over a decade ago.

Use our assets wisely.
Wes Clark believes that too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operation personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction Ð a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors.

These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission.
By doing so, we could refocus American specialists on the destruction of Al Qaeda wherever the Al Qaeda leadership and its forces may be located.
This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.<snip>

There's more to this also at:http://clark04.com/issues/alqaeda/


Then, he has his 10 Pledges.

<snip>WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES



I pledge to all Americans that I will bring our soldiers home, with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong.
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security; and secure ammunition.

Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away. Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly establish their own government to replace the existing council.<snip>

Here's a link to the rest.http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

<snip>General Wesley K. Clark Remarks on Restoring America's Alliances

Council on Foreign Relations
New York, NY
November 20, 2003


Fifty-seven years ago, when America first faced its responsibilities as the world's dominant power, Winston Churchill came to our shores to deliver a warning, and to call us to a higher purpose. Churchill told us that an Iron Curtain had fallen across the heart of Europe. He urged us to meet this common threat of a burgeoning Cold War, not by withdrawing from the world, relying only on our own defenses, but by rallying with the world. He said: "if the Western Democracies become divided . . . catastrophe may overwhelm us all." Fortunately, in those fateful days, America listened to Winston Churchill. Together we built NATO and we led the world to security and peace.

Earlier this year, another British Prime Minister came to the United States. Before a joint session of Congress, Tony Blair told us: "There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary." But like Churchill, he also delivered a warning. He said that we must work with our allies to defeat terror, and that "what America must do is to show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command." This time, however, our leaders did not listen. They did not heed the warning.

And now a new curtain has descended - not between America and its enemies, but between America and its friends.<snip>

Here's a link to his Atalantic Charter Speech for restoring America's Alliances.
http://clark04.com/speeches/012/

Here's a link to his "issues" page.http://clark04.com/issues/

Get the hell out of Iraq as soon as we can get a stable government there. Then concentrate our forces to fighting REAL terror threats and not wars based on nonexistant nuclear weapons.

You have two comprehensive National Security platforms from two Democratic candidates, and a third well placed argument on the various agencies in the Federal Government.

So my question is...Why are you not listening to Gen. Clark and Dr. Dean, and instead taking to heart anything that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth?:shrug:

per intelsucks request.

Somehow, I don't think his fears will be qualmed.

Bush has made America unsafe by his imperialist wars and the occupation of Iraq.

Get rid of Bush and America will be safer!

That's one security platform we all can agree on. Said perfectly IndianaGreen :)

The American public does not trust Democrats with National Security issues. They may tell the pollsters that education and jobs matter the most, but in the voting both they vote for a president whom they consider strong on National Security.

WHY?

Unfortunately for Democrats and the country, the repubs own National Security and any GOP candidate gets at minimum a B+, even AWOL monkeys. The reasoning is faulty, a result of over thirty years of rightwing propaganda and a Democratic base which includes anti-military elements to the point of cutting off its nose as well as the vote.

That bush would have gone to war no matter what happened in the congress may not be a foregone conclusion, but there is plenty of evidence. As it was, he never received the okay from the UN to go to war, because the UN felt the resolution did not authorize war. Hmmm? Why are these facts so easily dismissed? Because people will only seek to believe what suits their case. Yes.

Anyway, the GOP has controlled the presidency throughout the much of the Cold War. That they are chicken hawks and liars may be intellectual understood by many people, but discarded by the majority especially with a war on. The GOP knows this and lost to Clinton during a period of peace; the Democrats would seem to not care.

It will be difficult to oust bush, but not impossible if National Security is off the table. Dean's supporters think this is just a ploy to garner support for another candidate. They could not be more incorrect. Dean can say all of the right stuff--he can surround himself with the mightest foreign policy people who ever lived--it will not matter. Dean lacks gravitas. He cannot challenge bush on foreign policy, because the pre-conditioned voters are not easily led on this issue.

"A hole in national security" is more than just something needing to be filled; it, even more than the middle-class tax-cut rollback and the cultural war issues, is what will lose us this election. Dean's weakness becomes our weakness. I have a right and duty to speak out about this, because I and my family will be going down with you. I have the worst of feelings about this entire election.

it's not over yet by a long shot

maybe you shouldn't be the one advising us on how to win then.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself". -- some dem that was president for 13+ years (during war time no less).

Remember Bush Sr's mantra? Well, it didn't work for him because our country did not have significant troops overseas as we do now. If we run a national security platform, it WILL lose. Why? If people believe that national security/defense and Iraq are the top issues, then they will not want to change the captain of the ship while it is still underway.

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again, the emphasis should be on what is happening back home. Everybody knows somebody who is either jobless, soon to be jobless, or just hurting financially. With gov't over-spending and civil-rights violating, there are much more salient issues that must be addressed than a faraway and ultimately lose-lose issue.

Second, nominate a candidate with national security credentials and experience. Clark, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards all have varying strengths in this area.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards are all "miserable failures"!

I just had to keep that clear.

In all fairness, Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham were the two Presidential candidates that as members of Congress voted against IWR

I mean, LBJ had already escalated the conflict, right?

So it wasn't a political liability to LBJ or anything, right?

"What good is being staunchly anti-war, since we already invaded Iraq and cannot reverse it? It's done. Being against it might make us feel better, but it won't change a thing."

1. Despair, not principle, is the useless thing. Being against preventive war has nothing to do with feeling good and everything to do with a basic understanding of civilization. It's what differentiates us from ruthless murderers, for example.

"All of this talk about "Well yeah, Saddam was a bad guy and I'm glad he's gone but..." Isn't going to bring the voters who are on the fence over to our side...."

2. So what. Deciding that the Bush view of the world is normal and then pandering to it also isn't going to persuade voters. That is also a form of giving in to despair. The hell with that. Knowing what we stand for and then standing for it is the right thing to do (and the only possible hope of getting electoral victory).

"Unfortunately, the fear-mongering is probably going to end up working for (Bush) when it comes to those voters who are undecided."

3. The future is unwritten, grasshopper. See also responses 1 & 2.

"What can we do to counter this?"

There are many possible responses, but in the main, two major and very different strategies suggest themselves. One is to be unashamedly and rigorously liberal in opposition. The other is suggested by Shakespeare: "Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we, petty men, peep about under his huge legs to find ourselves dishonorable graves."

Which one do you want?

I hope that's not what you're suggesting. I also hope that you aren't suggesting the Democratic opponent be no better on these issues than the Warchimp we're trying to fire.

and you got all bases covered.