Friday, July 07, 2006

It's Time Democrats Aggressively Play the Terrorism Card

We all remember how the 2004 election was won by Repuglicans because they made the war on terror the central front in their war on Democrats. To be sure, the Iraq war and the economy were reasons enough to get them soundly kicked to the curb, but they shamelessly exploited 9/11, continued their lie about Iraq and, despite John Kerry's five Vietnam medals, successfully branded Democrats as the party of limp-wristed, weak-kneed, Birkenstock-wearing pansies who cannot protect America. Their mantra? Be afraid people, be very afraid. And it worked. Over 62-million voters--more than any in election history--sent the great macho warriors Bush & Cheney, Mr. Awol & Mr. Deferment, back to the White House to valiantly battle evil for another four years.

But now it's time to turn the tables on the Repugs and make fighting the war on terror a Democratic strength, not a weakness. There's several ways to accomplish this goal. First, the DNC, DSCC and DCCC, along with groups like, should wage a nationwide PR/ad campaign to promote the unparalleled military expertise of Democrats, and at the same time highlight the lack of military service in the GOP. Let's hit 'em in the gut with aggressive advertising:

"John Kerry. John Murtha. Charlie Rangel. Ted Kennedy. Jack Reed. Wesley Clark. These are just some of the members of the Democratic Party who wish to bring an end to the Iraq war and bring our troops home. What they also have in common is that they've all served honorably and courageously in America's military. Their guys, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Denny Hastert, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, want to keep sending our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, to die in Iraq as we indefinitely "stay the course" without a clear plan. What they also have in common is that none of them served in the U.S. military. Who would you rather have finding a solution for ending the war and protecting America, those who know what it feels like to put on a uniform and fight for their country, or those who did everything in their power to avoid it?" Vote Democrat. Make the right choice in 2006.

Damn, I get goosebumps just thinking about seeing this on the airwaves during primetime.

The next thing Democrats need to do, as Sen. Kerry called for this week, is to take ownership, politically, of the CIA's "Alec Station" unit which, for the past ten years, existed solely to hunt and capture/kill Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. It was just shut down by the Bush administration, which intends to "reallocate" assets to other counter-terrorism agencies. In essence, the Busheviks have given up on trying to find the murderous animal who vaporized 3000 Americans. Democrats should be all over this issue, hammering home the message that the Repugs may talk a good story, but their actions say something else. That they have failed in their promise to hunt and bring to justice the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and do everything possible to protect Americans. That they are closing the very spy unit designed to do just that.

"This unit should be reconstituted immediately and given all resources necessary to finish the job of holding bin Laden accountable and preventing him from organizing or inspiring future attacks against the United States and our allies," Kerry, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a letter to John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Kerry said the agency's reorganization of assets "is not a compelling rationale for curtailing efforts to bring this mass murderer to justice....Moreover, disbanding the bin Laden unit sends the message to the terrorists that they can kill thousands of Americans without being held to account."

How about another commercial:

"(tape plays Bush's 9/13/01 quote "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.")

(tape plays Bush's quote from March 2003 "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...I am truly not that concerned about him.")

(voiceover) George Bush and the Republicans promised you almost five years ago that they would do everything in their power to find Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants and bring them to justice for the horrific attacks of September 11. But while bin Laden keeps making audio and videotaped threats against America, Bush and the Republican leadership has shut down the CIA's "Alec Station" unit, the only U.S. counter-terrorism unit dedicated exclusively to hunting, capturing or killing bin Laden and Al Qaeda's leaders. After almost five years of tough talk and broken promises, they've simply given up.

(Tape plays Bush quote again..."The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.")

(Voiceover) George W. Bush has thrown in the towel on bin Laden. But he's still the number-one priority of Democrats. If we regain control of Congress, we'll re-open the critical CIA bin Laden unit and bring this brutal murderer to justice. Vote Democrat, and vote for leadership that will keep its promise to truly keep America safe from terrorists."

Lastly, Democrats must remind voters how the Busheviks have failed in the war on terror by diverting valuable financial, political and military resources away from Afghanistan--the country that housed, harbored and trained the 9/11 terrorists--and into Iraq. How they've let that country fall back into the hands of warlords, drug barons and the reconstituted Taliban as the fragile Democratic government of Hamid Karzai struggles to survive.

As Jamie Rubin, former Clinton State Department official and Sky News TV anchor, wrote in the New York Times Friday, Democrats need to overcome the image as "quitters, unwilling to hang tough in the fight against terrorism. Next time, the Democrats should try a different strategy. Instead of calling for troop cuts in Iraq, they should call for transferring forces and resources from Iraq to Afghanistan.

"By forcing a debate on transferring American forces back to Afghanistan," Rubin writes, "the Democrats can avoid the trap of allowing Republicans to claim they are weak. They can argue that their proposal is not a withdrawal from the front, but rather a deployment to an equally important front where American leadership can make the difference in securing a long-term victory. Democrats can justifiably argue their goal is to reverse the Bush administration's premature diversion to Iraq. If nothing else, such a debate would focus attention on the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan."

Our last commercial:

"When it comes to Iraq, the war on terror, and keeping America safe, Republicans say Democrats don't have a plan. To the contrary, we have a very good plan. It's the same plan we had almost five years ago when we voted to invade Afghanistan and wipe out Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban government that harbored them. But as soon as Republicans took control of Congress the following year, they, and President Bush, took their eye off these vicious terrorists and chose to divert our much-needed political, financial and military resources to an unnecessary war with Iraq, which did not attack us, did not possess weapons of mass destruction as the Bush administration warned, and posed no threat to us whatsoever. And as a result, Osama bin Laden and his top henchmen remain free as they continue plotting their next murderous attack on U.S. soil. If Democrats can regain control of Congress, we'll put the fight against the 9/11 terrorists back where it belongs, in Afghanistan, and the focus back where it belongs, on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We'll go after the enemy that attacked us, not the one that didn't. Vote for Democrats this November. We'll get America back on track in the war on terror.

C'mon, Democrats, get tough. It's time to out-Rove Rove. George Soros, are you listening?


Cranky Daze said...

Good advice. There's no question the war in Iraq will be a hot issue in the next campaign, and Republicans should be pounded with it at every turn. But look for the Pubs to recognize (if things continue they way they have for the past 3 years) that Iraq is a weak spot for them, and do their best to deflect it.

What this would mean is that they will be looking hard for another issue on which to attack the Dems. Republicans have proved that they are very willing to engage in character assassination with no regard whatsoever for whether or not their accusations are based on fact.

There is probably no issue which the Republicans would not be willing to distort...or invent. Face it, these are the people who branded our party as Cut and Run Democrats for their calls to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, then without so much as a blush, turned around the next week and made the same call...AND took credit for the idea. And that's only one of the minor demonstrations of hutzpah we've seen happening in recent years.

It is not pleasant to contemplate a real down-and-dirty, mud slinging campaign, but I believe that's what it has to be. It is a big mistake to try to fight cannon balls with a slingshot.

Anonymous said...

I am a "bleeding heart liberal" yet I agree with Anon. 9.43 AM. The Demoracts have shown no courage or even common sense. I cannot think of one potential presidential candidate that I would confidently vote for. Not only that, even if there were one, the Democrats have done nothing to make sure the Diebold voting machines don't enable another stolen election. And, of course, the Republicans will use other steal-the-voe-tactics to secure the victory for themselves.

Anonymous said...

you're a "bleeding heart liberal" but can't find one Dem you could vote for president? Does that mean you'll vote republican?

As for the other Anon who says Dems have "no guts", I guess the guys lost all theor guts while serving in the military, unlike the Repuplicans, who miraculosly acquired their guts years after dodging service. If anyone has no guts, Anon, its your republican brothers who ran like scared little momma's boys when they faced having to fight in battle. As ostroy says, Bush, Cheney, Rove, frist, hastert, Blunt and the other all somehow managed to find ways to get out of serving, while our "no guts" guys, the guys you losers constatly criticize, like Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, all served. I think we all really know who the "no guts" litle boys are.

Anonymous said...

Kerry needs to sign the US Military Form 180 and release his military records. What is he hiding? Why did over 100 of the US Soldiers that served with him, band-aided his 'wounds', and serve in his direct chain-of-command question his service claims. A simple "John F. Kerry" signature on the bottom of his Form 180 should answer any questions about his service - but he won't do it.

Anonymous said...

For anonymous 10:00:

No "Bleeding Heart Liberal" calls himself a "Bleeding Heart Liberal" you (not very smart) Repuglican liar. Trying to get Democrats to just give up because the machines are all rigged anyway is a Repukeian tactic.

The Ostroy Report said...

Sure, let's question the "authenticity" of Kerry's five medals and two enlisted terms in Vietnam. That's so much more important (and relevant to this overall debate) than whether Bush went AWOL in Alabama/Georgia even after his rich, connected daddy got him his plum gig in the Air National Guard, which back then was was a safe cushy little stateside assignment, unlike the highly dangerous, front-line tour it is today. It's amazing what you Repuglicans accept from your own, while you relentlessly attack true patriots like Kerry, Murtha, Kennedy, etc, who actually practiced what the Repuglican cowards preach.

Anonymous said...

I haven't enlisted so I'm not minimizing physical courage which most men and some women have been taught or shamed into exhibiting. We, who criticize the Democratic Party leaders are talking about the courage to risk losing votes and popularity by taking a principled and unpopular stand; courage to defend oneself vigorously with words when personally attacked (which neither Kerry nor Gore were able to do and just as bad they conceded losing their elections without a fight); the courage to think and act independent of the popular opinion (as did Dean who stood alone about the war) and to think and act independent of religiious beliefs if such beliefs go against our Cinstitution; the courage to openly and vigorously criticize and condemn the lies and policies of this administration; the courage to be called a "liberal" or even a "socialist" if one's stand is for the good of most of the American people and follows and again upholds the Constitution -- in a word - the courage to LEAD.

Daithí said...

Given that this weekend marks the first anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings, the Democrats would do well to demand an investigation of the Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan leak:

Also, this is a good time to demand an inquiry into the possibility of a premature leak pertaining to the threat against the Holland Tunnel:

And, of course, any time is a good time to start acting like an oppostion party!

Anonymous said...

I have told the leaders of the Democratic Party ( I am not a millionare donor to the party, so I know no one cares what I think)
that they are being wayyyy to NICE to Rethugnican slimers and letting them get away with too much. What in the world happened to the party of FDR, Truman, JFK and Johnson? These were people who had the courage to lead by stating what they believed and then DOING what they believed was best for most of the country. How can we expect others to believe in what we stand for ( I use the term loosely) if we turn pale and pee our pants everytime some rethugnican knuckle dragger or flat earther uses the dreaded L word? How can they trust our Democratic leaders to execute good, sound judgement in the pursuit of murderous thugs if we can't figure out what said leaders want to do? Lastly, every now and then I hear a reference to the late 90's when the gov't of the Sudan had Osama in their custody and asked us if we wanted him for trial in the Embassy bombings. According to this story, the Clinton administration declined the offer. I have not seen this in the news or any reputable media source, is this true? If not, what is the source?

Cranky Daze said...

anonymous said:
"Kerry needs to sign the US Military Form 180 and release his military records."

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

It is true. Bill Clinton was offered OBL by Sudan in the late 1990's. Two years earlier, Sudan gave Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez to the French. They tried to repeat the offer to Clinton with Osama Bin Laden, but Clinton and Sandy Berger rejected the offer. They refused because they were afraid that they would bring OBL into the American court system and he would be acquitted. Their fear of losing him and the public relations that would surround this failure outweighed their under estimated risk OBL presented to the US. Obviously they were wrong and 3000 Americans had to die.

Anonymous said...

As a lifelong Democrat who campaigned hard for John Kerry, I have to state his loss was solely the fault of poor strategy. Far too many aspects to get into here.

Upon reflection, the early days of the caucas were telling in that our area (outside a major metro area) had record turnouts. Many had never participated in a previous campaign. Yet, the Nat'l party sent in their own organizers that portrayed themselves as locals. One top organizer had an area code outside our state. Many meetings frequented by first time campaigners were restricted to campaign speeches and fundraising by local candidates. Ultimately a great loss of local networking, creativity, energy and passion was wasted.

Al Gore is my candidate of choice. I feel a passion for this man's candidacy I've never felt for another in thirty years of voting. It's not merely a Democrat thing this time around. Gore has positioned himself so far above the petty frey of party politics that has turned so many away from political participation in the past.

Now this may be dreaming, but an Al Gore/Wesley Clark ticket that attacked the bush admin for their list of crimes and incompetencies, while projecting a future we can ALL hope for is what I want to see.

Anonymous said...

Great ideas until you get to the Jamie Rubin suggestion to send our troops back to fight terrorism in Afganistan. It makes a strong sounding commercial, but the Dems will get clobbered on it, and deservedly so. Here's why:

--Osama is no longer in Afganistan.

--The Afgani terrain is a notoriously difficult place to fight a war.

--We had a real chance of securing Afganistan and helping to establish a stable, modern government there right after the invasion. That time has now past, The Taliban are on an upswing, warlords are fighting for a piece of the country, and trust in our competence and virtue is on a downswing. Going back into Afganistan means going back into another no win situation. Which leads to my final point:

--The American public wants to bring the troops home. It does not want to simply transfer them to get them bogged down in another potential civil war.

Suggesting that the Dems can win by advocating transferring our troops to Afganistan is such a phenomenally disasterous idea that one wonders if Rubin hasn't decided to take a walk on the Rove side.

Anonymous said...

As an American, I want the troops out of Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, and that there's no strong rationale for being there now. I can only speak for myself and not other voters, but if it made sense to go back into Afghanistan because the terrorist factions--the type that attached us on 9/11 (not "terrorists" who are actually "insurgents" fighting what they feel is an unjust occupation)--I'd could wholeheartedly suppport that. What Rubin suggested makes sense for Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Kerry's loss was poor strategy says Zeeland and I believe that to be true because Kerry didn't have the balls to stand up to that silly woman running the campaign who told him not to respond to the Swift Boat attack. She was more concerned about his wardrobe and that he be seen hunting. Where was Kerry's good sense and strength? (Admittedly, all I know is what I read about the campaign.)

Anonymous said...

This is for Anonymous. The story about Sudan is utter bullshit, and you damn well know it! Typical right-wing crap. In fact, it was the Democrats who were warning about the dangers of terrorism for years. Who didn't give a damn? The Republican Congress and the current Bush Admisnistration had no interest in pursuing a war on terrorism until 9/11 occurred. Then they politicized it for their own gain. Why do you think your pResident and his sycophants didn't want the 9/11 Commission? Because they feared that their false narrative of the events would be exposed for the fairy tales that they were.

Vigilante said...

I'm quoting and linking your great commercial: Our Heroes against Their Zeroes!

Anonymous said...

I think the ads proposed on this article are brilliant, most espically the first one. The most frustrating thing about it all is that all the points raised in the ads are so clearly true, why the hell arent the dems really owning these issues, that fat, ugly piece of crap karl rove should be used in the ads as much as possible, he exemplifies the republician party

Anonymous said...

Stop Joe Lieberman. Demos who give the enemy (Bush) succor, need to be punished, and hard. The Lieb is no liberal, regardless of his Watergate creds. Fact is, he trends further and further to the right, and not just on his pet project, Iraq.

Anonymous said...

I could not agree more. Remember when Lieberman debated Chaney during the election campaign? He should have been dumped by the Dems after that. He GAVE it away to Cheney. He was about the only Dem that voted for Bush-the-Father's war with Iraq. How has he been tolerated in the party this long? Stop Joe Lieberman, finally.

Anonymous said...

My suggestion for a commercial:

"In September of 2001, a highly placed CIA official (camera pans in on the George Herbert Walker Bush CIA HQ's building) placed bets (shorting stocks) of American and United Airlines stock drastically falling.

A week or so later, the leaseholder of WTC 7, the building that collapsed "just like" a controlled demolition, was captured on PBS stating he told the NYFD to "pull" the building, and they did, and we watched the building come down."

I'd close with the video of the two NYFD fireman, one a captian, that stated he heard and watched the building go "pop pop pop, like when they bring a building down, then a cloud of shit chased us down the street."

Or, we can pretend those aren't facts, that Republicans really do want to "protect us", and $300 billion deficits don't matter.....I guess I am saying, quit the shenanigans, and get on board AS WE CHASE DOWN THE REAL CULPRITS OF 911.