| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
To Dean’s following, the moment he stood out from the pack is when he stood up against the war. Opposition to the war in Iraq seems every bit as important to Dean’s campaign as opposition to the Vietnam War was to George McGovern’s successful bid for the Democratic nomination in 1972.
Isn’t it just about time that the left was asked what its plans are for combating terrorism?
The left doesn’t want us in Iraq, where we are bringing the fight right to the terrorists’ own backyard? Okay – what’s their plan?
There’s never a word from the left about how to fight terrorism. They can’t get enough of saying Iraq wasn’t “imminently” going to attack us. (I guess if Iraq was going to help nuke us in a couple of months we were supposed to leave Hussein in peace.) They can’t get enough of complaining that Bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet. Etc. etc. Okay—what’s their plan? How would they fight terrorism? What would they do to prevent another 9-11?
Why is it the left never gets questioned on this? Is it possible that no reporter on earth can imagine asking Dean or Kerry this question?
#2The left's "plan" for combating terrorism is to appease until it hurts. You have to remember Everything is America's Fault(tm), so we really bring it all on ourselves, and therefore if we just give the terrorists everything they want then things will begin to settle down. The only problem is they have no idea what the terrorists want. They think they do but they dont. The they think the terrorists are pissed off about globalization, the Kyoto treaty, and the ICC, etc. Obviously the rest of realize the Jihadis don't give a flying #$^! about any of that, and that an infidel is an infidel. But anyway their response would never work regardless because they still haven't gotten the message.
#3Vik--
I've said this elsewhere in another form, but here goes.
Two reasons the left has no plans to fight terrorism.
(1) 9/11 was all the US's fault anyway. Doing nothing would prevent more attacks.
&/or
(2) We are not really at war, thus there is no reason to have a plan.
On a more serious note, Paul Berman in Terror and Libealism notes that the left has long had a problem when dealing with massive death cults such as communism, fascism, and radical Islamism. The left has no plan because there is no place in their mental world to fit the information necessary to plan.
#4Spend more money. And raise taxes. Of course.
#5The worst argument offered by the anti-liberation crowd as to why the world should've allowed the rapacious, murderous status quo in Iraq (in the name of peace and justice) was a riposte to allegations of terrorist ties to Baghdad: "Osama would never accept anything from Saddam, money or weapons."
Silly and counter-intuitive, I know, but these armchair analysts presumed to negate the very idea that a religious fundamentalist could ever work with a secular Ba'athist against a common enemy.
The profundity of such ignorance of recent Middle East history is breathtaking-- another example of a maniacally eager, desperate effort to invalidate the case against a fascist tyrant. Desite their belief in Al Qaeda's aversion to Iraq, recall that they somehow simultaneously expected a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and huge sympathy from the Arab street.
They forget several things. First, the butcher of Baghdad "found religion," as he became an international pariah. He made a great show of religious observance. He may have even believed he was pious, for all we know.
Second, they forget ethnocentrism.
It's not hard to find quotes such as this from Arab media:
Jordanian: Of course I support Saddam. He's Arab.
Interviewer: Well, there are good Arabs, and bad Arabs...
Jordanian: (scoffing) The worst Arab is better than the best American! Or Zionist. Or British.
(memri.org)
Third: They had common goals: to elevate Arabs and Dar al Islam, to attack Israel, to attack America, to attack the West. This is a stronger by far than their differences, especially considering Saddam's representatives may have shown sincere religious fervor, winning over the fundamentalists.
Whether or not Saddam would ever have attacked us directly, his banned weapons represented a risk, a huge risk, of war by terrorist proxy. It wouldn't take another jet airliner attack to kill thousands.
#6Dr. Howard Dean has a comprehensive three circle plan of defence.
1. a circle of preparation and response to ensure that the resources are available immediately at the local and state level to enable first-responders to mitigate the effects of any future attack and cope with the consequences of such an attack without compromising our civil liberties;
2. a circle of protection to defend our critical infrastructure and borders;
3. a circle of prevention, in cooperation with Russia and our allies, to reduce the chances that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will fall into the hands of terrorists or states that mean us harm and to promote the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in societies that have heretofore been breeding grounds for terrorists.
Dr. Dean would take the money saved by reversing President Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the rich to establish a Homeland Defense Trust Fund to fund his comprehensive three-circle homeland defense strategy.
You can find a comprehensive discussion of Dean's proposals at http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_homelandsecurity
#7It's nice to see that Dean has a plan. Vague to the point of being useless, but a plan.
I would be most curious as to how one would go about promoting the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in places where doing all that would mean a loss of power for the current regiemes. They would seem unlikely candidates for voluntary reform.
I'm also not pleased that the words "capitalism", "free enterprise", or "economic opportunity" don't show up in circle #3, although I suspect those things have a much stronger correlation to stopping terrorism.
#8Dr. Dean seems to want to treat terrorist attacks like that are netural disasters like hurricanes or tornados. Be prepared, bury the bodies efficiently, get the elecric power and the sewers back running, don't let them get nukes cause that would make more bodies and devastate more infrastructure.
This is a contrast from Bush's plan which attacks root causes of Islamist terror by killing Islamofascists.
#9I can`t fathom how geometry, whether circles or squares or triangles would have prevented fully loaded airliners from smashing into buildings. It`s all smoke and mirrors, no substance.
The left doesn't want us in Iraq, where we are bringing the fight right to the terrorists' own backyard? Okay - what's their plan?
Own backyard? What you're saying is that Iraqis should die instead of Americans. No 'own backyard', no 'fighting terrorists.' Terrorists don't fight; they kill and they kill innocent people. And in Iraq, we're unable to stop them.
#11Gee, Arash, those there terrorists must really be tough! I mean, here we killed Usay and Oday (or whatever their names were), and you mean to tell me that they are still out there killing? They must be, since you said "we're unable to stop them", and you must be right, since you appear to be one of those sophisticated liberals.
So Arash, what's you're solution? Is it like "Dr. Dean's" plan which is to provide prompt (and free!) first aid to people who've been shot by terrorists? Perhaps hold national town hall meetings on "Why do they hate us?" Maybe we should let Egypt and Syria have a few nukes to destroy Israel?
Do you suppose that if we just had a good, healthy tax increase and ratified Kyoto and shut down all those pesky polluting businesses and were more sensitive to the desires of Islamofascists that we wouldn't have to worry about airliners flying into skyscrapers or crazy men running around with Anthrax?
We're waiting for you to share all that tremendous liberal wisdom with us, Arash!!
#12I finally figured out Dean's three-circle plan!
Circle 1. Steal Underpants!
Circle 2. ????
Circle 3. Stop Terrorism!
#13None of you people carping about Dean's plan read it. Embarassing.
Dave T.: You've moved the goalposts. What exactly is Bush's plan to "Promot[e] the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in places where doing all that would mean a loss of power for the current regiemes?" Is it to kill them, as Buck "Bloodlust" Smith so feverently hopes to do?
Bloodlust: No. His plan is to increase the resources devoted to responders, in addition to increasing deterrance and counter-terrorism actions. This is in stark contrast to the Bush plan, which is to cut funding for responders and use the deterrance and counter-terrorism capabilities of our country to hunt pornography and recalcitrant Texas state senators.
Nick: I can't fathom how snarky comments such as this one and the one you wrote contribute to the debate either, but we're cetainly both writing them. You obviously didn't read the plan.
Narniaman: Uday and Quasay were not killing Americans, unlike Osama Bin-Laden (remember him) and his Saudi backers. Perhaps if we focused on threats to Americans rather than going out nationbuilding, we'd be safer and more prosperous here at home. You also obviously didn't read the plan.
Eagerly awaiting the acknoledgement from Vik that Dr. Dean has proposed a far more concrete plan to win the war on terrorism than Bush has. I don't really expect to get it, but we all know that it's deserved.
Dean Plan:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_homelandsecurity
Bush's Actions:
http://www.iaff.org/across/news/links2001/081902ap.html
#14I have read Dean's plan and basically find that is a RESPONSE to terrorism, not how to fight terrorists.
This leads back to point #2: We are not at war, ergo no need to have a plan to fight one.
Dean has garnered a lot (most?) of his support by being anti-war, hard for him to post a plan on how to fight a war.
(Of course, if he is elected, he'll have to figure it out -- fast)
#15If you read the plan and still consider it to be a plan for a response to an act, why did you discount the sections on the CTR and the TSA?
Beyond that, this was not his plan for the Reconstruction of Iraq, a seperate topic from Homeland Security. Dean's page on the reconstruction can be found at:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan
However, this is irrelevent to the question at hand, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Perhaps you've confused Iraq with Afganistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
#16I did not think much of Governor Dean's plan, either.
That said, thank you, Hipocrite, for bringing it to my attention.
Both offensive and defensive components are necessary in a war. While Governor Dean's plan is unsatisfactory as a comprehensive whole, it does propose some wise defensive measures. It is a portion of a plan, not a plan. I would argue that the current administration's plan is not only more effective but also more concrete.
#17The Left's plan for combatting terrorism? Simple:
Surrender.
That, to paraphrase Tolkein, one needn't wield a sword to die on one has never occurred to them.
#18By the way, it's spelled hYpocrite.
#19The Left has no plan to fight terrorism. The Left's plan is to surrender. How can you conclude anything thing else based upon what they do, write, and say?
#20addison - no, it's spelled Hipocrite, hypocrite. I don't tell you how to spell your name, do I?
Lou - could you detail exactly what Bush's plan has been? I guess me and most of the other people were a bit confused when he defunded the first responders bill, and remained confused when we found out that the well-known terrorist target Wyoming 'There are vulnerable targets here. There are forests. There is agriculture' - spokeswoman for Gov. Dave Freudenthal recieved almost 8 times as much money per capita than New York in Homland Security spending. I guess it's the, er, well, agriculture and forests out there that have proven to be significant terror targets? I guess it was also part of the ingenious Homeland Security plan of GWB that he direct the Republican Majority in the House to reject an extra proposed $1BN of funding for homeland security which would have been funded by trimming a piece of the recently enacted tax break for 200,000 millionaries from $88,000 to $83,000.
I guess we know what kind of Homeland Security we've got with Bush - the kind that sends money to non-terrorist-target Red states and the kind that dosen't cost the extraordinarily rich an extra dollar.
#21The problem with the liberal response is that it still sees Sept 11 as a crime and not as an act of war. See we can only go after those actors specifically responsible and not act pre-emptively against the whole. Therefore no war against Saddam until we can prove his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Its sort of like responding to Pearl Harbor with "well we can get Kenda with murder 1 and Yamamoto on conspiracy, but since none of the pilots were German that rules out an attack on Hitler."
Its a good motto for the Democrats. "We won't act to protect you, but we will avenge your deaths."
#22Sadam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. You also have confused Iraq with Afganistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
What you're saying is something like "Well, we can't go after Japan and Germany for Pearl Harbor, but we don't like those Brazilians, so let's get them!"
#23Hipcrite,
The last time I checked, we were setting up governing councils in Iraq, and education was becoming available to women and girls in Afghanistan. So, progress is slow, but it would appear that there is a Bush plan covering at least the democracy and equal access for women part. Oh, and don't forget the end of torture and mass executions, which would take care of the human rights part.
Tolerance, I'm afraid, is a matter of the human heart and head, and all of the tax increases the hypothetical President Dean wants will not improve that.
So, I'm not sure why the Taliban or Saddam would suddenly start being nice to their fellow countrymen just because the US created a circle of protection promoting good values.
You present an interesting, and false, dichotomy in your last sentence in your response to me. Either avoid war and try to get governments to change through some sort of unspecified diplomatic effort, or lay waste to the land and kill everybody and everything in sight, with the US acting as a sort of proto-"Star Trek TNG" Crystalline Entity. In reality, a middle ground exists - do enough to take the oppressive government out of power, and avoid destroying infrastructure and civilian targets. Of course, there will always be some sort of "collateral damage" due to human error, but it is better than doing absolutely nothing.
So, I haven't moved the goalposts, but want to make sure that Dean has some way to at least get into field goal range. Right now, it appears that he would be content to be stuck on his own 1-yard-line.
From what I was able to piece together from Carol Mosely-Braun:
1. get more allies.
2. Do whatever those allies want or we'll "lose support from our allies"
3. understand why the terrorists hate us.
4. Stop doing whatever it is that makes them hate us (probably supporting Israel)