I’m sure they’d say that electing the Democrats to Congress emboldened the terrorists to attack us because the Democrats are so “weak on terror.”
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the election of the Democrats does provoke a terrorist attack, in hopes of getting the Republicans firmly back in power. The Republicans seem determined to do anything any terrorist would want, from flailing about with the military, to saber rattling towards the ME, to allying with the Islamofundies on issues like gays and abortion, to systematically ruining America’s reputation, to screwing America up internally, to keeping America bitterly divided, to pushing America into massive debt.
It’s heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. If there’s another attack (God forbid), it will be used by the Republicans to say, “Don’t change horses in midstream! Stick with our tough policies and don’t allow the wusses and soft-hearts to hold the reins!” If there’s no attack, it will be, “See, we’ve protected you! Stick with our tough policies and don’t allow the wusses and soft-hearts to take control!”
I’m pretty much with** Mr. Moto** on this one. I can’t see him actually sitting there and wishing for another few 9/11-style attacks (unless he’s a total nutter). OTOH, I can see him sitting there thinking “That would be a horrible, horrible tragedy… but I guess at least those naysayers would be forced to come around!”. But then I have heard of the “What we all need here is…” usage as a hypothetical.
Well, sure. But we went through that before, didn’t we?
During WWII, the Republican and Democratic Parties had essentially the same foreign policy, and campaigned mostly on domestic differences. Through the early years of the Cold War, the two parties tried to out-tough each other on foreign policy.
Want to stick it to the Republicans on this? Convince voters you will be tough on terrorists as well. I’d love to see it, myself - I think this is a war both parties need boots in.
And no - I don’t regard these telegraphed signals of withdrawal from Iraq as responsible policy in this area. Not in the slightest. It is just more confirmation to our enemies that in a war with us, they don’t need to beat us on the battlefield - they just need to take out enough of our soldiers for one of our political parties to lose its nerve.
Mostly on these boards I have expressed a desire for Democrats to become more like Republicans on this area of policy only.
I see lots of posts expressing a desire for the Republican Party to change in all sorts of ways - so this area of debate is certainly not off limits, is it?
In the lead up to WWII, the Republicans were exceptionally isolationist and wanted nothing to do with involving ourselves in the war. At what point, do you think, did they adopt the Democratic position vis a vis WWII?
I think the Democrats have made it eminently clear that they are tough on terrorism. The problem for people like yourself is that they propose a broader strategy than simply firing projectiles at them. Some voters will never be convinced about the Democrats positions on terrorism, and the Democrats need to learn not to be afraid to leave those voters in the dust.
65% of Republicans still give Bush favorable ratings, even though only 29% of Americans in general do. Some people are just crazy. What the Democrats need to do is forcefully stick to their positions and their principles. People will respect that a great deal more than they will the Democrats’ worrying about what the crazies, however vocal and however tough-sounding they may be, would like them to say.
To be convincing, we have to propose to be tough on terror in some way the Bush Admin has never yet even tried – everything he has tried, including the invasion of Afghanistan, having turned out a dramatic failure – and what options are there?
I don’t get it-we have no reason to make enemies with russia. We benefit from a strong russia-so why are we encouraging the ex-SSRs to join NATO? And needlessly provoking Putin? If the ME blows up, we WILL need some allies. This is the biggest problem-no sense foreign policy!
On that date, a major America First Committee rally was being held in Pittsburgh - in Soldiers and Sailors Hall, right next to the University of Pittsburgh campus. Rabid isolationist Gerald Nye, Republican Senator from North Dakota, was handed a note stating that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. He grew pale, then stated “I can’t somehow believe this,” and delivered his blistering antiwar speech anyway.
On December 11th, the committee voted to disband. In the years to come, membership in it was seen as a political liability that had to be explained away. Nye was defeated for reelection in 1944.
Wendell Willkie, who had seemed to be an isolationist in the 1940 election against FDR, became a close Roosevelt ally afterward, supporting Lend-Lease and other programs. During the war he embarked on a global tour to support the war effort and America’s foreign policy.
In 1944, Thomas Dewey campaigned strongly against the New Deal domestic programs, but avoided completely military and foreign policy criticism of the administration.
So yes, while the Republicans weren’t acting responsibly before Pearl Harbor, they got with the program afterward. Admirable behavior, I think we all can agree, given the circumstances. And I think a dash of that would be warranted now.
Good point. When the Iraqis bombed Pearl Harbor, Democrats were foolish not to unite in support of the war effort.
In seriousness, you see more than a dash of unity with Bush from the Democrats in regards to the war effort. He’s the one who split with them from focusing on the war in order to go invade Iraq.
Right. Wasn’t there some grumbling in America when early campaigns went to North Africa? After all, Hitler didn’t attack us.
As I have said before, I have long felt that another war with the Hussein regime was inevitable, and the sanctions against it were in danger of completely falling apart. Even with that sanctions enforcement in place, we still had to engage Iraq militarily in 1998.
That is the reality of the situation. It posed considerable danger to the region, and you have never been able to adequately explain it away.
Why? Sanctions were working. He had no WMD’s and no WMD programs. He was contained, he was no threat to anyone and as it turns out his people were better off than under our care.
I have always been in favour of an international intervention to remove him provided it was done competently and with no ulterior motives or intentions. Bush friggin’ blew it with his lies, incompetence and desire to make an Iraq in the American image.
You did get a dash of it back in 2001. Far as I know, everyone but the extremists was lined up with Bush to march on Afghanistan. There was grumbling when he turned his attention to Iraq (and, I might note, damn near all his attention; Afghanistan was left in the dust, which kinda negates your analogy to Africa as we continued to fight in the Pacific), but it was only after he started screwing the pooch that things really began to fall apart.
That’s the thing I’m not sure you quite get after all this time. The opposition to Bush isn’t (only) due to his policies, it’s due to his incompetence in executing those policies. We got with the program, and then saw that the program sucked monkey balls.
No; just the only straightforward, non-spinning one. (I’ll stop – just – short of declaring it the only honest one; poor language skill is also a possible explanation for coming up with some other interpretation.)
As if it needs saying, North Africa in 1942 was considerably different than Iraq in 2002.
It may be true that the struggle in Iraq is intended to provide a base from which to attack the strongholds of terror in the Middle East. But Iraq was not an existing theater of operations, Iraq was not a dager as a nation to us or our allies, there was not a worldwide military conflict going on, etc. In other words there was very much less shit hitting the fan in 2002, despite the worst terrorist attack in American history.
Why should we “get with the program” now? We were all on board with Afghanistan. Iraq was nothing more than a diversion, Saddam was effectively neutered, his own planes couldn’t fly over much of the nation and inspectors were scouring the country looking for WMD. Bush starts a totally unnecessary war and now we are stuck in a shooting gallery between rival factions who can’t decide whether they hate us or each other more. The war is lost due to the utter incompetence of the Bush administration and they seem incapable of realizing that or of offering a way out. What is the “program” that we are supposed to “get with”?
The longer we waited, the shallower the memories of a spectacular terrorist attack.
The longer we waited, the greater the chances that the inspectors would return a clean bill of health.
The longer we waited, the greater the likelihood that the UN would get its collective asses together and try to meddle in things.
The longer we waited, the more likely an election would shift the alignment of congress.
It was a cunning decision, even if it appears to resemble childish impatience.