Why do Democrats not challenge the foreign policy of Republicans ?

[kentuck]

Do we really have to agree with them in so many areas? Do we have to agree with the Repubs about their strategy and goals in Iraq? Can we not argue more forcibly for UN troops to come in and assist? Should we not declare that we will mend the fences with our longtime allies, Germany and France, when a Democrat is in the White House? Also, should we not criticize Bush and the Repubs for their childish namecalling and "freedom-fries" mockery during such a serious time in our nation's history?

Also, shouldn't we call the Bush family on their ties to the Saudi family over the years and request that the information about the Saudis in the 9/11 report be de-classified? Also, shouldn't we point out that the Repubs have one foreign policy failure after another and the people are mistaken to think they are competent in foreign policy?

Finally, we should define our nation as a member of the world society. We are not outlaws and the people of our nation deserve better leadership from Washington. We need to mend fences and work with our friends around the world and stop pretending like everyday is a shootout at the OK Corral. Isn't it time for Democrats to draw the contrast?

[mitchtv]

1. easy answer- they're afraid

clean pink tutu's and all

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Yes they are afraid...

why should the Repugs have a monopoly on this issue. National Security is important to all of us.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

3. Of course we need to contrast our vision with theirs.

Our leaders are afraid the other side will paint us as naive pacifists. Remember, all of our election consultants are telling our candidates to "be strong on national security and defense". Unfortunatly, the repukes did a fairly good job of convincing many in America that the UN is a bunch of pussies. Our candidates need to reverse that message and show the world that the UN is strong and vibrant and RELEVANT for peace in the world.

[kentuck]

4. I think this would be an ideal time to draw the contrast....

and I think the majority of Americans would believe the Democratic side...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

19. None of our "candidates" have a foreign policy vision except one:

Howard Dean in 2004.

[sangha]

5. Faulty premise

The Dems do challenge the Repukes foreign policy

1) their strategy and goals in Iraq?

The Dems have criticized and challenged BusH* on his Iraq strategy, particularly his inability to get a 2nd vote at the UN.

2) Can we not argue more forcibly for UN troops to come in and assist?

Actually, that seems to be a part of Bush*'s Iraq policy right now. Bush* is trying to get the UN's assistance with peacekeeping. Bush* has gone so far as trying to convince the other nations that the UN Resolutions that have been passed are sufficient. The other nations have not been convinced by that argument.

3) Should we not declare that we will mend the fences with our longtime allies, Germany and France, when a Democrat is in the White House?

Dems have already criticized Bush* and the Repukes for hurting our relations with out allies. They have done this dozens of times.

4) Also, should we not criticize Bush and the Repubs for their childish namecalling and "freedom-fries" mockery during such a serious time in our nation's history?

No. We have bigger things to fight for.

5) Also, shouldn't we call the Bush family on their ties to the Saudi family over the years and request that the information about the Saudis in the 9/11 report be de-classified?

Dems have done this in the past, and continue to do so. (cf Graham a well as others)

6) shouldn't we point out that the Repubs have one foreign policy failure after another and the people are mistaken to think they are competent in foreign policy?

IMO, this is a legitimate greivance. The Dems should be much more aggressive on this, IMO.

7) Finally, we should define our nation as a member of the world society.

IMO, no. Not particularly.

[kentuck]

7. Why "no" on # 7 sangha ?

Curious for your reasons?

[sangha]

12. There's no gain in it

IMO it won't win any votes, and it would certainly lose some. However, I'm not saying we should not talk about it at all. It could be useful for rhetorical purposes as part of a speech on foreign policy, but I don't see it as a major selling point or something to get hung up on. If I were the type to criticize the Dems, I could come up with much more than "They don't define us as a citizen of a global nation".

Your point about talking about Bush*'s foreign policy failures is where I'd start. We have to puncture the perception many have that Bush* is "fighting to protect us". The WMD lies has given us a huge opening for this. I hope the Dems don't let the opportunity pass. It wouldn't be the 1st time.

[bpilgrim]

31. they need to "pump UP the VOLUME" then

remember PERCEPTION is EVERYTHING ;->

they need to start yammering on the need for a new UN resolution to get peace keeprs in there 'dozens' of times DAILY.

the stage is all set... just waiting for some BOLD ACTORS :bounce:

:hi:

peace

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

8. Yes, we are all Americans but we are not all Republicans...

and when we think they are screwing up our country big time, shouldn't we say so? Or are Repubs always right in foreign policy issues?

[lkinsale]

10. Hear hear!

Not only screwing up our country but making us less secure by haring off on this misadventure in Iraq when we should be concentrating on al Queda, Pakistan and North Korea--we don't have a policy on any of 'em, we just hope we'll "come out of it ok," I guess.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

21. I appreciate your optimism, Rex, but...

is it written in stone? We will probably survive because we always have but why should the people of our nation have to suffer for decades for decisions made by the Republicans today? Are you retired and alredy getting Social Security? Some of are not there yet and we're not so sure that it will survive?

[mitchtv]

23. hahahahahahahahah

missed that boat in 2000 2001 2002 2003

[bpilgrim]

32. yeah... vietnam came out well for us, eh TEX

:puke:

peace

[blm]

9. Pay attention. Some Dems have been talking about it

for well over a year.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
He demanded an increase in foreign assistance as the best guarantee against suicidal terror. "If we fail to reach the children and families wrecked by the violence of poverty and seclusion, the growing population of unemployed and unemployable kids will find in fanaticism an answer to their problems," he said.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[kentuck]

11. I agree that some Dems have spoken out....

But it seems to me to be in a half-hearted manner? How many have defended the French, our long-time allies? Would that be politically unpalatable?

[ewagner]

14. Hey Kentuck

It is the duty of the "loyal opposition" to criticize the majority and OFFER ALTERNATIVES.

Gotta keep that balance. Everytime we criticize, we must also explain the alternative.

My old boss (a State Senator) used to tell me that a perfect political position was to:

1: View with concern: (the policy of the opposition)
2: Point with pride (to your party's position)
3: Promise to fix/solve/change the situation.

[blm]

15. Once our nominee is apparent

that person will set the tone for the entire Dem party. You'll see the difference.

[bpilgrim]

33. PUMP UP THE VOLUME!

:bounce:

peace

[tomp]

36. he's a militarist.

"He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein..."

well, he shouldn't. what he's basically agreeing with is typical bipartisan u.s. imperialism. WE get to decide when a country's govt will fall.

"He is, however, no naïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora."

the ONLY correct position on afghanistan is to demand a thorough independent investigation of 9/11 before deciding what to do about it. we should not have been in afghanistan at all and kerry's complaint is we weren't being forceful enough.

[newyawker99]

41. blm

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

NYer99
DU Moderator

[blm]

13. Here's more hammer from Kerry.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6197&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Note what James Carville says.


Joe Klein's New Yorker piece:

>>>>>>
His great strength is his mastery of foreign affairs and military policy. His willingness to criticize the Bush Administration on these subjects has distinguished him from the other eminent Democrats who wandered the country during the recent election season, hoping to make a Presidential impression on the Party faithful. In fact, he often derided "a new conventional wisdom of consultants, pollsters, and strategists who argue . . . that Democrats should be the party of domestic issues only."

Kerry's criticism of the Bush foreign policy is meticulous and comprehensive. It begins with the Administration's gratuitously ideological diplomatic actions in the year before the September 11th terrorist attacks. On Bush's decision to simply walk away from the Kyoto global-warming treaty, for example, he told me, "One hundred and sixty nations spent ten years working to get to a certain place and the United States just stands up and dismisses it out of hand. The Administration doesn't say we're going to try to fix it, doesn't say we respect your work, doesn't say we're going to try to find the common ground where we do have some differences. It just declares it dead. Now, what do we think those presidents of those countries, those prime ministers and those finance ministers, those environmental ministers are? Are they all dumb? Are we telling them they are absolutely incapable of making judgments about science, that the ten years of work that they've invested in conference after conference, many of which I attended, was absolutely for naught? That makes us friends in the world?"

Kerry extends this argument beyond the usual liberal critique: the unilateralist approach, he says, damages America's ability to do the intelligence gathering and wage the unconventional warfare that are at the heart of an effective campaign against terrorists and rogue states. He is critical of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations for their uncertain, and too frequently unsubtle, use of American power. Although he voted against the Gulf War in 1991, he has supported military action against Iraq in the years since-indeed, he was a co-sponsor of the resolution that threatened force against Iraq in 1998, when Saddam Hussein sent the United Nations weapons inspectors home. But he is a critic of the Pentagon's old-fashioned Cold War doctrine of overwhelming air power, its overcautious use of ground troops, and its skepticism about the efficacy of unconventional war-fighting assets, like the Special Forces. Early on, he criticized the Bush Administration for its tactics in Afghanistan, its slapdash and unsuccessful effort to trap the Al Qaeda leadership at Tora Bora-and particularly its decision not to use American troops to surround the mountain redoubt. "When given the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda, the President turned not to the best military in the history of man," he said in July, "but rather turned to Afghan warlords who only a week earlier were on the other side."

Kerry's foreign policy seems a muscular multilateralism: active, detailed engagement with the countries in the Middle East and elsewhere; less pompous rhetoric and more of the patient scut work-the diplomatic consultation, the building of direct relationships with local intelligence and police agencies-that will make an occasional use of force by America more palatable. There is an implication that much of the Bush Administration's bombast has been for domestic political consumption, an attempt to sound tougher than Bill Clinton did. "The Administration mistakes tough rhetoric for tough policy," Kerry told me. "They may gain short-term domestic advantage as a result, but they are damaging the long-term security of the country. This is a far more complicated world than the ideologues of the Administration care about or understand."

Finally, Kerry broadens his practical critique of Bush's foreign policy to add some vision. Specifically, he says that the President missed an opportunity, in the weeks after September 11th, to call the nation to a larger cause: energy independence. In October of 2001, Kerry proposed a concerted energy-conservation campaign, including higher fuel-efficiency standards in automobiles and a "Manhattan Project" to develop renewable sources of energy. "No American son or daughter should ever again be sent abroad to die for oil," he often says on the stump, invariably to ovations from the Democratic faithful.

This is a complicated message, and-except for the one sound bite-a difficult one to deliver at a political rally. But Kerry's knowledge and conviction, and the fact that his words sound different from the market-tested slogans that other Democrats were rehearsing this autumn, gave him a credibility that his competitors in the larval Presidential race were missing. For the first time in his career, he didn't seem precocious. "I think he's had a hell of a year," James Carville, the political strategist, said.. "Why? Because he's actually saying something. People do notice that, you know. The other thing is, 9/11 made the Commander-in-Chief part of the Presidency important again, and that's helped him, too, because of his military background. And, finally, he's not conflicted about this. He's not testing the waters. He's immersed in the waters. He's growing gills."

>>>>>>>>>>>

[kentuck]

16. Thanks. I had not read that article...

I would like to hear more of these types of challenges. Consistently.

[sangha]

20. Then you'll have to pay very close attention

because the media isn't exactly bending over backwards helping the Dems promote their ideas.

[kentuck]

22. I expected that response...

:) Are you sure you're not a Repub?

[sangha]

24. Heh!

I try hard to not disappoint.

[blm]

25. The consistency is there

5{ple who matter for now, DO notice...like Carville.

You can catch up here at the news link for articles you missed, or check out the speeches link. The foreign policy speech at Georgetown is excellent.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer

[kentuck]

26. That is debatable....

Didn't he vote to go to war? Only after the fact, comes the consistency?

[blm]

27. Haven't you looked at any DATES?

You're judging when you haven't yet bothered to examine the record. Are you sure you're not a Republican. ;)

[kentuck]

28. He couldn't criticize the event before it happened, right?

And did he vote for the War? I do not believe that John Kerry is naive. I will support him wholeheartedly if he is the candidate, but there are consequences for our actions and our votes. Democrats have to understand that. If the Iraq situation turns around, he can say that he voted for the resolution. But life is full of choices. We can't always have it both ways.

[blm]

40. No, you didn't even bother, did you?

Oh well...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[kentuck]

42. All the dates that I saw from the link was from Aug -2002 to Sept 2002???

About a year after 9/11 ?? Do you have more dates dealing with defense issues from that link?

He did author a book in 1997: Is there more you would like to point out to prove your point? Whatever the hell your point is?

"Senator Kerry authored a book in 1997 called The New War, a provocative look at the global web of crime-from narco-terrorism to bio-terrorism-which threatens Americans at home and around the world"

[kentuck]

43. See post # 26..

After the fact..

[blm]

44. I referred you to

his site which had plenty of articles in the News section from before and after the resolution and war, and many speeches at the speeches link.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

18. They are cowards

x

[xequals]

29. I'll say this much,

the party that captures this issue will win the presidency and control of the congress for years to come. There is no other issue even close to the one of national security in this post 9-11 world.

Democrats need to attack hard on this issue. The biggest mistake would be to write it off and simply go after Bush on the economy.

And the Democrats need a realistic way to handle national security. The anti-war left's pacifist/passive route is a non-solution... almost as bad as the pro-empire right's radical solution. However, Americans will choose the radical right over the pacifist left any day if presented with those two choices -- national security/survival/feeling safe comes before anything. People will take the insane radical who actually does something over the saintly pacifist who preaches inaction.

I believe that Kerry and Clark (and Graham to some extent) have the correct approach: well thought out, a plan for the long and short term, strong but multilateralist -- the coolheaded, calm, strong hand that will fight for American interests around the world by involving the world. True national security is international security.

[sangha]

34. Good post

Welcome to DU!

[sandnsea]

37. You confuse me

Above you said Dems shouldn't promote the idea of being part of a world community but then you say this guy's post is great and he points out the Dems promote a multilateral approach.

Being part of a world community and leading with true respect and cooperation IS the Dem foreign policy approach. It's the basis of the argument against the Bush Doctrine and unilateral preemptive strikes. Kerry, Graham, Edwards, Dean, almost all of them state the same basic principles.

I agree we can't be pacifist on foreign policy and I really agree we can't depend on the economy as a winning isssue either. But I do think people clearly see we live in a world community and pure unilateralism is not a productive approach to foreign policy. I think they're hungry for the Democratic message.

[kentuck]

35. Clinton and Gore had a strong defense against terrorism ....

after the WTC was attacked the first couple of months into the Clinton Administration, they did not attack again until 9/11. This was after Sandy Berger gave them the word that they had to keep their eyes on Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda. Bush and the Repubs, in their incompetence, went asleep at the wheel and let it happen..on purpose, maybe? The Commander in Chief is responsible for protecting this nation, especially after he has been in office for 8 months. He had the intelligence but he chose to ignore it. Why?

[sandnsea]

39. Uhm, what???

African embassies, USS Cole???? Al qaeda attacked. The problem was every time Clinton tried to talk about Osama bin Laden the Pubs said "distraction, diversion.... it's the penis we need to worry about!".

[tomp]

38. yes, but HOW?

the issue of national security has very little to do with military issues, unless what you want to do is dominate people militarily.

diplomacy is the issue.

and by that i mean, we must first have a foreign policy reassessment which will unquestionably reveal a multitude of american global sins, not in isolated fashion but as part of a prolonged systematic pattern.

once these abuses are revealed in their entirety, we must aapologize for them, attempt some form of reparations, and create new policies of cooperation with other nations.

then and only then will we even begin to be safe. which candidate is promoting this path forward?

[KG]

30. because, except for some of the more extreme RW policies

the dems. don't disagree very much.

and if you're specifically pointing to post 9/11 actions, well, with few exceptions, the dems have played the 'me, too' - PATRIOT act, afghanistan, iraq. some dems are are expressing some contrition now, but that won't bring back thousands of dead, and un-destroy 2 nations.

and don't expect a real spine to appear anytime soon.