Why is the Democratic Party taking up Bush's "war on terra?"

[mike_c]

I'm posting this here because I think it's an issue of more general importance than the choice of candidates per se. Mods, please move to GDP'04 if necessary.

Why is there no coherent Democratic Party strategy to undercut the entire "war on terror" meme? In the first place, it's virturally the only leg Bush* has to run on. Making it a non-issue will undermine the repig campaign strategy from the very beginning.

Why does the Democratic party seem to be embracing dubya's biggest mistake? My impression is that many of the democratic candidates, and the party as a whole (DK notwithstanding) intend to use a "we can fight the war on terror better" stategy in the GE. The "war on terror" is a flawed concept from the very beginning. Why aren't dems repudiating it?

Why hasn't the Democratic party spoken collectively against the injustice of Guantanamo Bay, and the concept of indefinite detention, secret trials, and denial of counsel?

Why hasn't the party spoken out against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? I realize that many in the party leadership have some embarassing 'splainin' to do on that account, but the opposition party position should certainly be clear by now.

Why hasn't the Democratic party called for the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act?

It seems to me that we are handing these issues to Bush and letting him set the context for the '04 campaign issues. Why won't the Democratic Party take these issues away from Bush? Without them, his campaign would shrivel up and blow away. By allowing them to remain as issues, the Democrats are in essence pledging to out-Bush* the master reptile himself.

edit: spelling and grammar

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Excellent questions.

The only candidate who has really addressed these is Dennis Kucinich.

[KenLayedOff]

2. We need to portray the WOT as an excuse to murder brown people

Once we sell that we can use it to blast Bush.

[Q]

3. Defense contractors donate lots of money...

...to both GOPers and Dems. And let's not forget the 'patriot game'...where both sides try to act the toughest on matters of 'national security'.

- The biggest problem is that many democrats voted for Bush's war and now have a hard time admitting they made a mistake.

[mike_c]

6. but doesn't that suggest that the Democratic party has...

...many of the same ultimate objectives as the Republican party? The Guantanamo Bay issue seems like a no brainer-- Gitmo is a direct attack on the fundamental constitutional principle of the rule of law and protecting the rights of the accused. Where is the Democratic Party outrage?

on edit: And why is the Democratic Party allowing Bushco to make the invasion of Iraq the icon of the "war on terror." The invasion of Iraq had virtually nothing to do with the "war on terror." Why aren't the party leaders and candidates pointing this out? Do they still BELIEVE that shrubya was right?

[Sliverofhope]

27. There is one theory

Military seizure of oil.

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. because it's not about changing policies, just putting in a new spokesoaf

Winning is the point, WHAT is won, well, the party has consistently made the decisions it has felt are in its best interests.

Kerry can't let bush "out-terror" him. Go re-read the WSWS piece.

The Dems are fighting for the same little pool of voters that the Repubs are. That's all there is.

And they want more dead Muslims, more Patriot Acts, and tough crackdowns to root out suspected potential terrorist sympathizers right here at home.

Kerry is in the unenviable position that George Wallace was after the 1958 Alabama governor's race, but without having lost an election :)

[whathappened]

5. i to can't

find in my mind why in the world these dem's got behind this jackass from the beginning , i still to this day beleive the 911 thing was set up for jr. with the help of old bin and heart attack chain man , and these people should have questioned it from day one

[rainy]

7. I believe they really didn't know if weapons would be found or not

They were scared if they did not vote for the resolution, bush went in anyway, found lots of wmd, became huge hero, iraqis dancing in streets, then their political careers would have been toast. One thing they did know, Bush was going to have his war. They voted for the resolution and said they expected the pres. to use war as a last resort.

[mike_c]

8. but the IWR aside, why don't the dems expose the WOT...

...for the farce it is? Does the party leadership REALLY believe in it? Do they embrace an openended, decades long conflict against a shifting, ever changing "enemy"-- often yesterday's allies-- without any clear objectives or means of "winning?" If they do, why do we allow them to represent us? If they don't, why don't they say so? I'm as politically cynical as anyone on DU, but the current strategy of the Democratic Party is mystifying me (and reminding me strongly of 2002, when no one wanted to point out the emperor's rather obvious nudity, with disasterous results).

[rainy]

12. I agree 100% but still say they are scared because they know the

general public is uninformed and can be manipulated and hyped up by the media to believe all of the patriot, go USA propaganda coming out of the coporate owned right-wing politicians and media. They do not have a chance to change that type of mind set enough to win an election against the lies and hype. The truth will not win them elections which is more important than anything. Right now the sheeple want to stop terroist and thing what bush is doing is the strong and tough way. Our guys would be portrayed as wimps aganist terror if they tell the truth about this bogus fight against terror. Did I make any sence?

[LeahMira]

9. You have to start where the people are...

Why does the Democratic party seem to be embracing dubya's biggest mistake? My impression is that many of the democratic candidates, and the party as a whole (DK notwithstanding) intend to use a "we can fight the war on terror better" stategy in the GE. The "war on terror" is a flawed concept from the very beginning. Why aren't dems repudiating it?

There are still a huge number of people out there who are very concerned about their personal safety. They are not really way out in orbit either, because this administration has kept those concerns and fears alive as much as possible and has done a lot to make us all feel less safe.

There are also quite a few people who think that if the U.S. doesn't develop every possible means of killing people that mankind can invent, and then make sure that nobody else in the world develops them, we are being soft on defense.

I certainly don't envy Senator Kerry at all. When he is elected, he will have to undo all the crap that Shrubbish has done and at the same time reassure the American people that the sky won't fall on us all.

We can fight the "war on terror" better by trying to eliminatie poverty and oppression and so eliminate the "audience" for those who want to strike out in anger or frustration.

But whether or not they have good reasons to fear terrorists, the fact is that a lot of Americans do fear terrorists. Any candidate has to speak to that fear... and then gently and in a reassuring way lead the people up from it.

[mike_c]

10. but it's all smoke and mirrors....

Why not expose the WOT for the sham it is? Why not calm people's fears, show them constructive strategies for overcoming them, instead of buying into the neocon meme? Start where the people are, but offer them an alternative to endless war! Why aren't the dems leading on this?

[Xanth]

19. Do you all get it or not??

There was evidence seen by this and the previous administration, congress, and the U.N. which led them all to believe Saddam had WMD's.

On September 11, 2001 America was attacked by terrorists with our own airplanes crashing into buildings and killing our fellow Americans.

There was intelligence that linked terrorist to Saddam. Put the two together and that equals greater terrorist power. We felt threatened of future attacks. So the administration and congress overwhelmingly agreed to go to the U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed. Well we all know what happened from there.

"But whether or not they have good reasons to fear terrorists, the fact is that a lot of Americans do fear terrorists. Any candidate has to speak to that fear... and then gently and in a reassuring way lead the people up from it."

Whether or not we have good reason to fear? Did we fear before 9/11, not really and would you make the same statement before 9/11. I was happy and content with the way things were. We didn't ask the terrorists to kill us and now we know the threat is more real than ever. Well the terrorists woke the giant and we won't sleep until the threat is gone.

This war on terror will be here for a long time no matter who is president. I disagree with leading people from fear because then they become vulnerable. I believe the candidate should keep the reality of terrorist threats alive. Helping us to be cautious and become closer as a country. If there happens to be another attack on our country it's you and me picking up the pieces.


"We can fight the "war on terror" better by trying to eliminatie poverty and oppression and so eliminate the "audience" for those who want to strike out in anger or frustration."

I don't think Al-Qaeda needs to be lifted out of poverty. They have more money than you or I have ever dreamed of. They are fundamentalist killers of anyone. They even kill there own kind. America gives more to help the world than any other country on earth.

Kerry will have to hit the ground sprinting.

[mike_c]

20. it's hard to imagine that you and I belong to the same political...

...party. We certainly don't seem to have many core beliefs in common. Do you believe that it is right to throw out constitutional protections for persons accused of crimes, even before any evidence has been presented against them? To deny them the right to counsel? To try them in secret? Do you honestly believe that "terrorism" is a worse threat to your daily life than the political reaction to terrorism has been?

edit: And by the way, I think you've just confirmed my fears about the death of the Democratic Party.

[maggrwaggr]

22. uh, I would be surprised to find out Xanth is

actually a Dem.

:)

Considering that entire post was cut-n-paste Republican drivel

[kentuck]

30. Why ?

What role did the Bush lies play in the present way Americans think?

[leyton]

11. Because terrorism exists.

The US needs to combat terrorism, and whether or not it is called "War on Terrorism" or "The US Department of Getting Rid of Politically Motivated Destruction-related programs" is a matter of semantics.

I mean, sure, we should consider repealing the Patriot Act and we should not have to think twice about giving captives rights. We should point out the lack of connection between Iraq and terrorism and the fact that anti-Americanism breeds more terrorists. But we can't just ignore terrorism, because it happened before 9/11 and it may happen again.

[mike_c]

14. terrorism has existed for as long as humans have existed...

...just not as an important political issue in the U.S. George Walker Bush* made it an important political issue. Terrorism hasn't changed one whit during the time Bush was in office. We are allowing the neocons to construct a bogey man and use it to dominate an election. Seriously, how frightened are you personally of dying in a terrorist attack? Your chances of being killed by terrorism are pretty much the same today as they were 10 years ago. You're MUCH more likely to choke on your food and sufficate. Why should otherwise reasonable people allow the neocon repigs to nurture a culture of fear? Where is the Democratic opposition?

[leyton]

28. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it.

If my chances today are the same today as they were 10 years ago, that makes sense, because terrorism has been a problem. We had the marine barracks bombings, the embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole. But there is also the fact that someone tried to smuggle a dirty bomb into the US, there was the shoe bomber (remember him?), etc. This needs to be addressed, regardless of whether it was addressed before 9/11 or not. Anti-Americanism is not decreasing at all in the world, so in my esteem, we are more at risk. Am I personally afraid? I'm not afraid for myself, because frankly I don't think Charlotte, NC is high on any terrorist's list. But I think the citizens of the US deserve the best protection money can buy.

[BillZBubb]

13. Because to do so would be to lose big time

The situation is asymmetric. It is much easier to make people fear than to make them feel secure. The side pushing fear can put out all sorts of rumors and speculation. The public accepts the propaganda and is afraid--they have no way of knowing the truth from fiction.

The side trying to explain why the fear is based on false information has an impossible task. There is no easy argument. It is convoluted and detailed. There are too many phantoms to try to bury. People won't follow it. They'll take the easy path of "better safe than sorry".

Witness the public's absolute swallowing of the BushCo WMD claims. They also still swallow the need for a war on terruh.

The Democrats have to show that we know terrorism is a real problem. But, we'll deal with it in a much smarter and targeted way than the incompetent and deceptive way that BushCo has.

[mike_c]

15. then the repigs have already won....

Welcome to the new Democratic Party.

[maggrwaggr]

16. oh, just smile and vote for Kerry, will ya?

Let's face it, that part of the Democratic party has lost the primaries.

As Will Pitt said: Cope.

(yes, I hit the "bitter and sarcastic" button before I typed that).

The fact of the matter is, the Democratic party is taking the "scaredy-cat" route this election. Going with the man they think is "electable".

The fear is that it would be political suicide to be anything but "tough on the war on terror".

And they might be right. People ain't that bright, you know. I heard half of them are below average!

[mike_c]

17. they took the "scaredy-cat route" in 2002 as well....

Remember the bitterness and ashes on DU the morning after election day? The pleas for a Democratic Party that would offer real alternatives to the Bushco nightmare? It's not just about defeating Bush in November-- it's about winning a change in America. I'm despairing for the party of FDR, the Democratic party I've stood behind for all of my voting life.

[Melinda]

18. Shhhh, Kerry is on the job!!!!

That's what we've been told for the last 6 months right here on DU! Just wait, once he is the nominee, Bush is toast!! BCCI and 911!! IRAQ!!! PATRIOT ACT!!! BFEE!!!! It's gonna come crashing down, just you wait and see!!!








:eyes:

[leesa]

21. Nearly all of them voted for it. They WANT this aggression

They know we need the oil to continue living the American fantasy and they are willing to steal it to make it happen.
Kerry will not end this madness even though he knows without a doubt that it was based entirely on lies. He knew that before he voted for it. If I knew the results of reports from the UN inspectors and from the intelligence agencies around the world prior to the war, which very clearly said their was virtually no threat, Kerry knew them too.
They want this to happen. It's a joint excercise with our evil partner in crime, Sharon.

[saltara]

23. Restore civil liberties decimated by "terror war" legislation

There is a bill gathering sponsors which aims to repeal key provisions of the Patriot Act which have decimated civil liberties (Civil Liberties Restoration Act) and a bipartisan bill introduced in both the House and the Senate (Security and Freedom Ensured Act) which aims at reigning in some of the excesses of the Patriot Act. You can read about them and take action by going to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee website

http://bordc.org/legislation.htm#CLRAHR

or the ACLU website

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=13907&c=24

Now - as Bush and Ashcroft are calling for Congress to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire next year - is the time to get on the phone and send faxes/letters to your representatives. There is growing opposition to the "war on terror" fear-mongoring rhetoric, but it's coming from different places (protest groups; union members who experienced the brutality of the Oakland and Miami police; libertarians; conservative Republicans like Bob Barr; Kucinich and other Democrats; People for the American Way; the firefighters union which today spoke out against the Bush campaign's use of 9/11 images in a political "hey, there's a 'war on terror' on - vote for me!" context; immigrant groups). The media and the frontrunners are not only way behind on this, they appear to be participating in selling Americans on a "smoke and mirrors" perpetual "terror war" scenario that makes diplomacy, accountability and the public's right to know seem like antiquated pipedreams - don't let them get away with this!

[mike_c]

24. welcome to DU, saltara!

This is an awesome, although sometimes infuriating, community. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have for the last couple of years.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi saltara!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[neebob]

25. Um, because they want to keep their jobs?

Don't get me started.

[gate of the sun]

26. Bush lite I suppose

n/t

[PVnRT]

29. Fighting terrorism is very important

The argument that the Democrats need to make is that the Bush administration is doing it incorrectly. Terrorism affects everyone, not just the citizens of the U.S., and, as such, should involve everyone. Instead, Bush has chosen to just fire missles and bombs at whoever he wants to.

In addition, the Democrats need to make an issue of Operation Ignore, Bush's systematic attempt to unravel every anti-terrorism measure that Clinton started to implement in the last few years of his term.

[Q]

31. What many of the Bush* War Apologists...

...seem to ignore is that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with the so-called war on terrorism. Nothing. But those Democrats who voted for the resolution and threw off their Constitutional responsibilities are now going along with the lie for political expediency. Admitting that the invasion/occupation was illegal makes them complicit in WAR CRIMES.

- Most Democrats 'embrace' his mistake because they're part of it. And like the Bushies...they would rather kill thousands of innocents and American soldiers rather than admit they were wrong.

[librechik]

33. stampede n/t