Dr. Frank's What's-it

Just imagine what hysterical level the crypto-antisemitic rhetoric in certain British publications would be ratcheted up to if Lieberman were in the Oval Office. Actually, in a way that could be just another reason to vote for him, to see those certain publications make even bigger asses of themselves.

Lieberman seems to me, at a glance, like a kind of "split the difference" candidate as regards fiscal issues and Iraq, and I can't say I have much confidence in that. In a Lieberman vs. Bush scenario, I think I might actually rather see Rummy...err, Bush...stay president and finish out Iraq.

I hear you, Space, and you may have a point, at that. I suppose there's also the danger that even Lieberman could bring in some Warren Christophers with him. It doesn't matter that much, though, because the choice won't be on offer.

Why would anyone think Bush will do better at fighting the current war, which I assume means the "war" on terrorism? Let's see, so far he's failed to catch either Osama or Saddam, inflamed a dangerous situation with North Korea that had been looking less frightening, lied to the American public about WMD and nukes in Iraq, alienated virtually all of our allies leaving American soldiers holding the bag in Baghdad, massively eroded our civil liberties in the name of "security," kowtowed to energy interests, which reinforces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, refused to investigate the intelligence failures leading to 9-11 or hold ANYONE accountable...Just cause he looks more confident in a military vehicle than Michael Dukakis you trust him?

Bush's agenda is not "security" or "winning the war on terrorism." It's keeping the war going as long as possible, frightening all of us so much that we'll hand over our money, our rights, our well-being so that Bush and his pals can "protect" us. That's not even getting into his awful economic and other domestic policies.

Lieberman, BTW, is essentially a pro-choice right winger whose big accomplishments are doing whatever the insurance industry asks him to do, loosening regulations on stock options, and attacking filmmakers and musicians for the moral corruption of the USA. Even Graham looks good compared to him, and that says a lot.

Nick

Hey Nick,

Answer one key question: how many mass casualty attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?

Thank you for playing. Come again.

Is credibility on defense really going to be a deal-breaker? I don't know. It is with left-wing intellectuals, but what about the rest of the Democratic Party? People like my parents, who aren't intellectuals and have never even heard of Noam Chomsky. The Democrats are much bigger than the lefties in the media.

I'm still a Democrat despite my hawkish views, partly because I'm very interested to see what the rank-and-file folks will do in the primary. I kinda doubt they'll go for Dean or Kerry, but we'll see.

Bush GOOD! Leiberman BAD!

I love it when people like Nick point out that GW has failed to catch Saddam and Osama. Comments like that make me picture GW in a hunting cap walking around in the desert saying "shhhh. be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting tewwowists. hahahahaha..." An accurate comment would be that the military has failed to caputre Saddam and Osama and that the CIA can't find them.

Another thing about Leiberman. I'm by no means an anti-semmite but at this juncture in history, it would not be in the best interest of America not have have a Jewish President. If you think the people of Islam hate us now and accuse us of being a tool of or the puppetmaster of (there are sides that think one way or the other) Israel, then the proverbial feces would completely hit the fan if we had a Jewish President. Leiberman may be a great guy, may be a great President but things are too turbulent right now to risk it.

Another funny comment was that by JB, stating "how many mass casualty attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?" Anyone who knows how terrorist operate knew that there would be no follow-up attack. That is not their style. They make a big hit and then run and hide until they think they've been forgotten about and we become complacent and then they make a couple of little strikes to feel things out and when we're not expecting it again.... WHAMMO! That's just the nature of the beast.

Not only do I basically agree with Dr. Frank's assessment of Lieberman, but I have to say I kinda like the idea (as hinted at by Combustible Boy) of him being President if only just for the sake of smoking out the creepy anti-semites :-)

Can't say I agree with you, Channon, that we should allow our enemies' prejudices to determine whom we select as our leaders. Anyway they (meaning the purveyors of Islamo-fascism's many flavors) already hate us, and their propaganda already focuses on sinister Jewish control of the White House. As C-boy says, so does the Guardian's, on occasion. But, you know, it's not going to happen anyway.

And Michael, you're right of course that we'll have to wait and see what happens. Ordinary Democrats are by and large, as you say, not on the same page as their activist left. But I'm not very impressed with how any of the candidates have been addressing defense or the war. "Bush lied" doesn't cut it as a credible policy critique, and even though it plays well in certain well-heeled circles, it won't cut it politically either. (And by the way, I'm still a Democrat, too.)

About relative efficacy in fighting the war, consider this:

It's likely that we won't have another giant invasion any time soon. It's hard to see how it could be done even logistically, unless a threat emerges that is so gigantic that a world-war-level mobilization of the American people becomes politically possible. It isn't right now, regardless of what Trent Telenko thinks. If North Korea nukes somebody, it might be. We need some reserve for that (which also ties into what I'll say below). But for now, in the immediate future, big invasions are not in the cards.

Instead, the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have entered the stage of peacekeeping/occupation operations, and the US military is having a bit of a hard time in this role. This is mostly not the fault of the US military; it emerges from the situation. Bruce Rolston explained it succinctly on his blog months ago: when you are the baddest mother in the world, everyone wants a shot at your guys. So they have to concentrate on force protection, which is terrible for peacekeeping operations, in the same way that heavily armed officers prowling around in squad cars and helicopters are bad for community policing.

So in order for these missions to succeed over the long run, we need some buy-in from allies. It's fortunate that in Afghanistan we have a number of nations cooperating (including the dreaded French), and even in Iraq we've got the British. But we could do with a lot more, and it's just not forthcoming, because the people in even allied countries currently despise us, making this politically difficult for their own leaders.

Well, they don't really despise us. More accurately, they despise George W. Bush, and his administration.

You can fume about this and call it irrational if you like. But the fact is that it's impeding the longer war. Further dismissive treatment in the same vein from Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney is not going to help the situation. On the other hand, were they to be replaced, much of the ill will would instantly evaporate.

I think this is worth noting as a contributor to US national security or the lack thereof.

Now... as for your other point, that running on the war is a loser's strategy for 2004, I think you're right. Democrats can tout the questionable WMD assertions as a means of impugning the president's honesty; I think that's a legitimate and worthy attack. If the situation in the Sunni triangle gets worse, or the south devolves into an authoritarian Islamist state, those are legitimate objections as well.

The problem will be putting distance between such criticisms, and the antiwar movement's depiction of the war as criminal aggression against the innocent. Most Americans simply won't buy that, because they know that Saddam was so fond of killing people that invading his country probably saved innocent lives on balance. (If the situation in Iraq _really_ goes south, that may no longer be true-- but anyone claiming that will need extraordinary evidence.)

My current guess: Dean will be nominated, will run an angry, alienating campaign, and will lose all 50 states, winning only the District of Columbia. Core Democrats will respond to this with increasing anger and incredulity; there will be popular theories on the far left that the whole election was fake, and a few years of early-90s-level political violence and unrest, with the parties reversed. Discontent with the worsening economy will lead to Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, and possibly the return of the Senate to the Democrats, though it will be a near thing. Bush's successor may win in 2008 but will face increasingly divided government. The return to two-party governance will happen from the bottom up. All bets are off if the North Koreans nuke somebody.

Oh, crap, I've just annoyed everyone of every political affiliation, haven't I? See, this is why I don't post this stuff on my own blog.

Matt, that's my current best guess now, as well (Dean nominated, runs bitter alienating campaign, loses 50 states.)

JB asked:

"Answer one key question: how many mass casualty attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?"

OK. None. Now, how many mass-casualty attacks were there on US soil before Bush came to power?

"Thank you for playing."

That's OK. You're a very gracious loser.

I don't vote for Democrats and tend to dislike them even more than Republicans but . . . I hope they get their stuff sorted out and can start mounting some sort of credible alternative to Dubs. I'm not sure more-or-less one party rule under the Republicans is that great an idea. From a fiscal standpoint certainly. Bring back gridlock.

Frank, Matt:
Who says that if Dean (or any of the other Ds) wins he'll run an angry, negative campaign? No competent campaign manager would allow it. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, including Dean, will run much more to the center in the general than in the primary - that's basic, and it'll win him at least a few states (MN, Mass., VT, perhaps OR/WA, maybe NY, maybe CA). Moreover, the nominee needn't make a huge deal about the war: if it's Dean or Kerry, they've won that issue. No one who opposed the Iraq war is going to turn around and vote for Bush. The D nominee will focus on the economy, the deficit and GOP spending - that wins them moderates, including supporters of Bush's foreign policy.
They don't have to be a raving Chomskyite to point out the, er, shortcomings of Homeland Security, and they win points with libertarians for being more concerned about TIA and PATRIOT II.
The #1 thing people say they like about Bush is his leadership - that's going to take a hit in the current flap about intelligence failures. Bush has punted on this ('mistakes were made'-type excuses don't play well when you've built a reputation for bold, decisive leadership), and it'll hurt him - Not too bad, but moderate votes add up quickly.
I actually think it'll be a fairly typical election - not all that close, but not as large of a gap as we saw in 1996. Even if Dean's elected, it won't be a Mondale thing - Mondale ran a primary campaign in the general, and no one will be that stupid again.

Well, Mondale did it even with the example of McGovern '72.

Hope you're right, Marc, but we'll see. My other concern is even if Dean behaves, the fact that he started out, more than anyone else, as the Antiwar Brand Candidate makes him vulnerable to this simple who-do-you-trust-to-fight-our-enemies attack that is still pretty appealing to the center. For the reasons I stated above, it probably wouldn't be as effective on me as on Frank. But the fact that Frank and other left-of-center people are still making it says something.

We can also safely assume that various proxies will go dirty in the general campaign and accuse Dean outright of treason in time of war. Of course they'll do that no matter who runs against Bush (it's already well under way), but Dean's given them the best clips to run.

On the issue of Lieberman and anti-Semitism: I'm sure his candidacy would enrage anti-Semites. On the other hand, I AM Jewish, and I still hate the idea of a Lieberman presidency. Look, Jewish public servants have run the gamut, from Wellstone to Kissinger or Wolfowitz or Sharon, to pick an Israeli example. Even as a Jew, I judge 'em as politicians, not as members of a potential minyan.

Actually, there has been one mass attack on American lives since 9-11. Anyone remember the anthrax terror a few years ago? Didn't kill as many people as 9-11 by a long shot, but it seems like it originated inside the US, and even without mass deaths it certainly terrorized most of the country. Still haven't found the perpetrator yet, bringing the Bush Admin record up to 0 fer 3.

And yes, Bush isn't personally hunting terrorists, despite his "watch me fly a warplane" gig a while back. But in electing a president we're basically selecting the Federal Executive Branch Administration, and it's fair to hold the big guy accountable for his administration's failures -- especially since he'll certainly run on what he sees as his Admin's successes.

"Now, how many mass-casualty attacks were there on US soil before Bush came to power?"

Uh... Tim?

Have you forgotten: the Oklahoma bombing and the previous World Trade Center bombing? And how on earth is Bush somehow to blame (because that is how I am reading your statement) for a terrorist attack that was planned years before he became president, and would probably (though this has to be confined to the realm of "what if") have been carried out no matter who was president?

And the fact that only hundreds or less, not thousands, of people didn't die in the previous attack certainly doesn't disqualify them from being considered attacks or a terroristic or war-like nature; unless you want to go all the way back to Pearl Harbor. Your example is... inadequate. And in any case whether you like it or not the decision to fight terrorist-sponsoring entities instead of forming hand-wringing committees and/or running to the UN for help does seem to have had a significantly deleterous effect on the actions of these Islamicist terrorists and their backers.

By the way, the old question "so where is Bin Laden" et al is meaningless. It doesn't really matter where he is at this point -- what matters is that we have not heard peep from him in quite some time (I am not counting the taped appearances of "Osama" as having any significance), and his followers seem to have been for the most part scattered or routed.

I humbly disagree with the notion that Bush is doing a good job with this "war."

The Bush administration calls this a "war" against terrorism; a nameless, faceless, enemy. To win a war, you must defeat the enemy. I cannot see victory accomplished by Bush's means, unless he plans on killing every single person in the world who is crazy enough to act on their hatred of us. Even that won't work because it will only spawn MORE hatred of us.

To attempt to "Americanize" or "democratize" every country that harbors terrorist cells, only makes these people MORE angry at us and more desperate to hurt us by any means necessary.

To address JB's original question, "how many mass casualty attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?"

There have been several attacks on American civilians around the world. It's to the point that I only feel secure in my own country, and it's not because shoes are being x-rayed at the airport.

I believe that we need a leader who will make America a better global citizen, rather than make us appear as a global bully, who's response to aggression is always retaliation. We need a guy who can think outside of the box for a change.

I have no ideas who my ideal candidate is, at this point, but I'll vote for whomever, regardless of their political party.