>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>>So isn't it better to sound like a hawk than to be one? Wouldn't you
>>rather Dems score points by bashing UAE emirs than advocating killing more
>>Iraqi civilians?
>
>-No. I'd rather they'd drop sounding like hawks. This is idiotic
>-posturing of a low but all-too-typical sort.
>
>And your purity on opposing any "posturing" is politically insane.
>
>Bush's whole basis to lead wars is based on his credibility in being
>dedicated to fighting terrorism. To the extend that credibility is undercut
>and is seen as being more loyal to oil interests than the American people,
>it makes new wars far less likely.
No, it reinforces the "permanent war" master narrative, and makes wars more likely, since in the unlikely case that a Dem wins based on this nonsense, he (or she) would have to start a war as proof of toughness. Dems can't out-tough the Reps; Kerry tried, and it blew up in his face. They're not convincing as the Tough Daddy party and never will be.
Doug