Nathan Newman wrote:
>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.
You really don't see any difference between an argument for security based on actual defensive measures -- like checking cargo coming into the country -- and insane warmongering based on "preemptive wars"? As policy, intelligent toughening up of port security is not unreasonable and might actually catch someone smuggling in small nukes or such.
The issue in this case is not out-toughing Bush, but destroying his credibility. The less tough he is seen, the less tough the Dems have to be to beat him. I probably agree that Dems won't be able to out Daddy the GOP, but mommy issues are a lot more compelling if people think Homer is sitting on the couch.
Nathan Newman