PhotoDude.com

Sat. Jan 31, 2004

Democrats Flop About on Terrorism

Democrats Flop About on Terrorism – The Washington Times (motto: ”Where the Moon never sets”) has some ”select” quotes from the Democratic debate in South Carolina. I will concede from the start, the quotes in the Times are all removed from their framing context … there’s no doubt about that (and here’s the full debate transcript). There’s also no doubt that after months of campaigning, the candidates ought to be fully aware that’s how ”sound bytes” work. That’s the nature of political campaigning. The media won’t show 30 seconds of your debate rebuttal (maybe a couple of paragraphs?), you’ll get 5 to 10 seconds. A sentence. Maybe two. Is it fair? No. It is a well known process that candidates must master to succeed?

Yes.

John Kerry: ”’I think there has been an exaggeration,’ Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. ’They are misleading all Americans in a profound way.’”

That’s how the Washington Times cuts down the quote. But even in the context of the full transcript, it’s only slightly better. Brokaw asked Kerry (directly, twice) about terrorism, saying it’s been ”written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don’t get it. Who is right?”

”KERRY: I think it’s somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing…”

”BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?”

Kerry then gives the usual list of claims about Iraq, not terrorism, but then veers back on topic with the words the Times quoted … ”That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less—it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.”

”But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world—the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven’t embraced, because otherwise we’re inviting a clash of civilizations.”

”And I think this administration’s arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.”

Within that context, his words are only slightly more palatable. On the one hand he’s saying the threat is exaggerated, and on the other hand he says he’ll make America safer from that threat.

How can it be that thousands dead in the US, and hundreds killed elsewhere around the world since then, is less of a threat than we’ve been lead to believe? How can he claim we’ve been profoundly mislead about the threat from terrorism (not Iraq), when we all spent five months watching smoke rise from a pit of destruction in downtown Manhattan. How can a veteran look at a published Declaration of War, followed by devastating bombings of two of our embassies, followed by an attack on a US naval vessel (perhaps the oldest traditional act of war against a country), followed by the worst attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, and continuing published threats to kill thousands more of us … and not see it as the biggest threat this country has faced in decades? A profound threat, not an exaggerated one.

Mr. Kerry, that high pitched squeak you hear is the sound of my chances of voting for you shrinking to near invisibility.

We need to be doing more to counter these very real threats. Our ports are nearly wide open to attack via container bombs, and very little concrete action has been taken to correct that situation on Bush’s watch. There’s a host of examples of similar failings, and the Wise Democrat would be harping on those failures to secure this country, while avoiding any impression they didn’t take the threat to be as serious as the Bush administration does. The only way you’ll beat Bush on terrorism is to run to the right of him; point out his profound failures, not claim the threat is exaggerated.

Next.

Howard Dean: ”I think in some ways, unfortunately, the terrorists have already won.”

Oh, my. I’ll add a touch of context to that apparent concession of defeat, just to be nice. Mr. Dean is, of course, referring to the vast numbers of Americans who’ve been jailed under the Patriot Act. Oh, wait, that’s right. No one seems to be able to provide a list of actual abuses suffered by American citizens in US courts specifically due to the Patriot Act (Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said: ”I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and they had none.”). All there seems to be is a long list of things that might happen, and ways they could abuse power. Some day.

And because of that, today, the terrorists have won, says Mr. Dean. Now, I’m no big fan of the Patriot Act. But even looking at full context of the transcript, that was an extremely poor choice of words. They were the first that came out of his mouth after Brokaw’s question. Yet a few seconds later, he says, ”But if we start giving up our fundamental liberties as Americans because terrorists attacked us, then we have a big problem.”

What an imminently defensible statement. Far more reasonable than resorting to a now worn cliche that ”the terrorists have won.” Too bad they came out of the same mouth, with the knee jerk cliche leading the way.

Next.

John Edwards: ”It’s just hard for me to see how you can say there’s an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September 11. I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.”

Should we award points for such a simple and obvious statement? Well, when compared to the above, how can we not?

I’m willing to listen to criticisms about Iraq. As they relate to post war Iraq, and our botched plans for occupation and transition, I agree with many of them. But the Wise Candidate will draw a clear fire line in their rhetoric; if they want to run to the left of Bush on Iraq, it behooves them to run to the right of him on Al Qaeda. Clearly.

When I hear one candidate talk of being profoundly mislead about an exaggerated threat, and another suggest that in many ways the terrorists have already won, I hear a sound I can only describe as dismissive defeatism.

It does not attract. It repels.