The War Weak On Terror
Alan Dershowitz has an op-ed in today's Opinion Journal that spells out the trap Democrats are setting for themselves. At the behest of their far left fringe, they are ardently opposing things in such a way as to make them look weak on National Security. Dershowitz predicts a nasty surprise come next November if they don't curb their pandering to the noisy left.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans may watch Michael Moore's movies or cheer Cindy Sheehan's demonstrations, but tens of millions want the Moores and Sheehans of our nation as far away as possible from influencing national security policy. That is why Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing surprisingly well among many segments of the electorate, ranging from centrist Democrats to Republicans and even some on the religious right.
It may seem strange that a candidate, who came to national prominence as the New York mayor, and one with a mixed record in that job, would be the choice of so many on security issues, despite his lack of experience in the national and international arenas. But the post- 9/11 Rudy conveys a sense of toughness, of no-nonsense defense of America.
I am not suggesting that Democratic candidates seek to emulate Mr. Giuliani. But they cannot ignore his tough stance on national security if they want to succeed in the 2008 election, as distinguished from selected state primaries. Marginal Democratic candidates certainly benefit from moving to the left on national security issues, but serious candidates–candidates who want to have any realistic chance of prevailing in the general election–must not allow themselves to be pushed, shoved or even nudged away from a strong commitment to national security.
Consider, for example, the contentious and emotionally laden issue of the use of torture in securing preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism–the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio:
"You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over."
He said Congress should draw a narrow statute "which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." The president would have to "take personal responsibility" for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation. Sen. John McCain has also said that as president he would take responsibility for authorizing torture in that "one in a million" situation.
Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president–indeed any leader of a democratic nation–would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy.
As Massimo Calabresi pointed out in Time Magazine, "The Democrats ….. have an uncanny ability to milk humiliation out of national security debates…" They are pandering to the left and they look like they are pandering. Rendition programs were active under Bill Clinton's presidency - the Democrats know that full well. Dershowitz's warning, like Calabresi's, will probably go unheeded.
Democrats know full well that in the ticking bomb scenario that they would have to authorize whatever means necessary to get information that could avert the attack. The alternative is taking responsibility for the deaths of American citizens. "Gee, our political posturing is more important than your lives." Try selling that to the American voters. The Democrats are rapidly painting themselves into a very tight corner with their pandering.
By mockinbird, Wednesday, 7 November , 2007 @ 4:10 pm
These Democratic candidates don’t just look weak on national defense and national security-they are weak on national defense and national security.
By Bill Franklin, Wednesday, 7 November , 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Are you aware Dubya recently beat out Nixon in “strongly disapprove” rating? Over half the country “strongly disapproves” of Dubya’s policies, and we can only assume a good chunk of that disapproval is over the so called “war on terror.” How you can keep standing behind this policy when 2007 is shaping up to be the worst year for soldiers since we invading Iraq is beyond me. What has to happen that will convince you that our “Axis of Evil” and invasion and nation building efforts are counterproductive? And the saddest part is, Bin Laden is still running free. And our currency is the toilet.