Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A Democratic Foreign Policy
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Democratic Party has released a foreign policy prospectus — "The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World" [pdf] — detailing their plan for a US Foreign policy. After a quick read, it appears to contain some good ideas, some wheel-spinning programs, some wishful thinking and a lot of platitudes.

Basically, it's just your average politicians press release:

Good Intentions x Money + Hope = Success!

However, in a story on the press conference announcement, the Washington Post offers us a fascinating insight into the careful, thoughtful (and reality-based!) deliberative process through which the Democratic Party creates a foreign policy...
Democrats have polled extensively on national security, testing various possible messages for the fall, and found that the more emphasis put on securing the homeland, the more voters respond. According to one poll taken for the Democratic National Committee, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed responded positively to such a message, rather than a message that emphasized taking the fight to the terrorists and staying the course in Iraq.
MESSAGE: Here's the Democratic Foreign Policy — our vision for the future of America. If you don't like it, we've got others!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
At least we finally have two clear choices:


the republican forign policy of "Faith x Money x Ruthlesness" = Success! "
vs the democrats "Good Intentions x Money + Hope = Success! "


Too bad there isn’t a third choice.
 
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
Were the pages in the original document all pointing in the same direction?
 
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
No, the Spanish-language pages are (ironically) upside down.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
How do they reconcile punching cops with securing the homeland in this document?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Very Clever. That makes the spanish version right side up on the other side of the equator.
 
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
Wow. I think they’ve got my vote with that proposal. The specificity is what makes it so credible. Bill Clinton did a great job dealing with North Korea and I know that Pelosi and Reid will be just as tough.
Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
Again, the specificity is what makes it so convincing. Eliminate bin Laden? Why didn’t Bush think of that? Clinton was completely focused on terrorism and did so much more than Bush has to fight it. It’s time Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats took back control of the war on terror and showed Bush how to kick some a**.
Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America whenever necessary.
This is the most convincing argument of them all. Democrats have always believed in military spending. Clinton didn’t cut spending at all and he only reduced the the army to 4 divisions from 11.

 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
1. They can do no worse than Bush has done with Iran and Korea


2. Bush went into Iraq and took focus off of Bin Laden. His face never made it on a playing card.


3. The republican house and senate reduced the size of military. Given the threats visable at the time I suspect most Libertarians prefered the balanced budget.



 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
Every time I read this, I can’t help but think of the scene from "A Few Good Men":

Demi Moore: "Your Honor, I strenuously object!"
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
Cindy -

The war is bigger than OBL. It would be great to get him - but the war continues long after his capture.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
I was expecting the Democrats to announce that their plan is to put Osama on double-secret probation.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
While they’re at it, could they cure cancer too?
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
So if Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, does that mean we will invade Pakistan?

What if Osama bin Laden is dead by then? Well I guess we can declare victory for the war on terror! Hooray! That frees up all of the defense budget for a single-payer health care system!
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://jewsthemovie.ytmnsfw.com/
Eliminate bin Laden? Why didn’t Bush think of that? Clinton was completely focused on terrorism and did so much more than Bush has to fight it.
Exactly. Clinton was so shortsighted he didn’t even invade Iraq. And as we know he knew exactly what Bush knew about their threat.

What a dumbass!

 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Good Intentions x Money + Hope = Success!
I laughed out loud. You should sell mugs with that printed on them.
 
Written By: Bitter
URL: http://qando.net/
This plan looks like it fell out of a Cracker Jack box.

Do you all remember the "Vision Thing" critique that Bill Clinton’s campaign pulled on Bush Senior in the 1992 elections? Oddly, the critique describes the Dem’s current problem in foreign affairs. Their plan for national defense lacks a coherent vision. Calling the sitting President - deposer of the Taliban, and victor in two military campaigns - a liar in one breath, and pledging to pop OBL in the next, just doesn’t add up.

They gotta get the "Vision Thing" on National Defense. I can’t shoot a straight arrow through, first, the Dem’s anemic response to attacks on our embassies, warships, barracks and diplomats throughout the 90’s, then, second, the various Euro-tropic utterances of John Kerry’s ’04 campaign (ie. the "Global Test"), and last, this, the party’s most recent foreign policy "plan."

To start winning national elections again, the party needs to demonstrate a consistent, unswerving record of acting (and speaking) in defense of our Nation. It’s going to take time, perhaps a decade or more, for them to regain my trust in their ability to handle America’s foreign affairs.

A nifty Power-point presentation won’t do it.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
The better plan would be to invade a Middle East country that had relatively little to do with terrorism and hardly posed a threat to the Untied States, turn that country over to radical clerics and their militias, forment ethnic strife, and create a lawless society where an insurgency, criminal gangs and government sponsored death squads abduct or blow up the citizenry at will. Oh, and strenghten the hand of Iran in the process.

Of course calling it a plan would suggest that someone would be thinking ahead a little bit. Even that would be better than what we have now.
Calling the sitting President - deposer of the Taliban, and victor in two military campaigns - a liar in one breath, and pledging to pop OBL in the next, just doesn’t add up.
File under no comment.



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The better plan would be to invade a Middle East country that had relatively little to do with terrorism
Are there any?
 
Written By: Jso
URL: http://
The better plan would be to invade a Middle East country that had relatively little to do with terrorism...
... but had already invaded two neighbors in an attempt to monopolize mid-east oil, killed a quarter-million+ of its own people (not counting soldiers), was keeping a substantial portion of our military occupied in containment (presumably forever), subsidized Palestinian suicide bombers, hosted terrorists such as Abu Nidal, was known to have used WMDs on its own citizens, was widely believed to have attempted to cause the assassination of a sitting American president ...

And just coincidentally happened to be smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, making it an ideal place to try a completely new approach to fighting terrorism - by making something else, namely an open society, more attractive.

Hey, not every experiment works, though the jury’s still out on this one and I have optimism that it’s going to turn out a lot better than the current crop of almost-always-wrong pessimists predicts. ("Afghanistan, grave of empires. Tens of thousands of Americans soldiers will die invading Baghdad. etc. etc.") But I would hope that the American people still retain enough of their frontier-conquering attitude to be willing to try something new when everything else tried has failed. And to recognize content-free, incoherent, focus-grouped nonsense when they hear it.
File under no comment.
Color me unsurprised, since the bolded statement you were commenting on is irrefutable. (Assuming you know what the meaning of "military campaign" is, of course.)
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
"1. They can do no worse than Bush has done with Iran and Korea"

Unfortunately this statement is not true. While there is the small possibility for someone to improve on Bush’s policy for these two countries (though I doubt it) managing to somehow muck it up even worse is always a BIG possibility with politicians (dem or rep.)

We don’t have many choices for North Korea, and while the Carter/Clinton deal takes a lot of flack, it was still the best chance at the time. Now we know it didn’t work and we are back at square one, with even less options as a result.

As for Iran, I guess we could try a deal similar to Carter/Clinton whereby we give them a bunch of goodies and hope for the best, but I doubt that will work if the regime really wants nukes.

p.s. Am I wrong to think that any military action against Iran is probably much easier with us being in Iraq as opposed to trying to supply armored divisions through Herat? Hmmm, maybe we should have made a deal with Saddam in 2002: He disarms, we get access to Basra to attack Iran, and we give him those Arab provinces of Iran....LOL
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
well Harun, we could always put Saddam back into power, "Hey you Iraquis, you are too slow, too bad for you, you got Saddam back!"
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
The republican house and senate reduced the size of military. Given the threats visable at the time I suspect most Libertarians prefered the balanced budget.
Hmmn. Since you claim the house and the senate were responsible for reducing military spending (which they were, right along with Slick Willie) I’m sure you’re consistent and give them credit for the surplus in 1999 and 2000 (which they were, right along with Slick Willie).
They can do no worse than Bush has done with Iran and Korea
Sure they could. Take North Korea. On November 8, 1993, the New York Times reported:
President Clinton said yesterday, "North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. We have to be very firm about it."
July 1998, the New York Times reported on the success of the Agreed Framework negotiated by an absolute titan of foreign policy, Jimma Carter:
General Accounting Office reports that North Korea is refusing to allow international inspectors full access to its nuclear sites, raising concern that it will be impossible to determine whether North has hidden away enough plutonium to build nuclear weapons; says there are significant gaps in inspection program imposed by 1994 nuclear freeze agreement signed with US
I seem to remember a Taepo Dong 1 ballistic missile test over Japan in 1998 and a joint nuclear test with Pakistan that same year.

In 2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that
North Korea’s secret highly enriched unranium (HEU) program appears to date from at least 1996. Hwang Jang-yop, a Communist Party secretary who defected in 1997, has stated that North Korea and Pakistan agreed in the summer of 1996 to trade North Korean long-range missile technology for Pakistani HEU technology. Other information dates North Korea-Pakistan cooperation to 1993. The Clinton Administration reportedly learned of it in 1998 or 1999, and a Department of Energy report of 1999 cited evidence of the program. In March 2000, President Clinton notified he was waiving certification that "North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the capability to enrich uranium."
It would be impossible to do worse than Clinton did. Not only did he fail to stop North Korea’s weapons programs, he did everything he could to cover them up as they accelerated during his presidency. Notice it took Clinton two years to notify Congress he was taking the bold step of waiving his "certification" that North Korea wasn’t building bombs. Clinton is still trying to pretend that he stopped the North Korean nuclear program in order to burnish his pathetic record. To be fair, however (unlike Bush haters), North Korea was developing these weapons well before Clinton came into office. It’s just that the program continued unabated during his presidency and Democrats want to pretend it didn’t happen. Bush hasn’t had much success either, but at least he’s honest about it and not trying to pretend that it isn’t happening.

We had eight years of Democrats bombing pharmaceutical plants, tents in the desert and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. All the while, al Qaeda was attacking us again and again and the NOKO’s were busy building bombs under the cover of a bunch of narcisissts pretending to be substantial. Democrats aren’t fooling anyone.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
... but had already invaded two neighbors in an attempt to monopolize mid-east oil, killed a quarter-million+ of its own people (not counting soldiers), was keeping a substantial portion of our military occupied in containment (presumably forever), subsidized Palestinian suicide bombers, hosted terrorists such as Abu Nidal, was known to have used WMDs on its own citizens, was widely believed to have attempted to cause the assassination of a sitting American president ...


So I guess you think that puting the hurt in Iran is bad thing. Why are you so pro-Iranian? What’s with your love affair with Iran? Saddam was useful because he provided a counter-weight to Iran. That’s why your GOP supported him in the 80’s. Now, Bush has given Iran an opening in Iran. And you seem just fine with that.

Again, what’s with your love affair with the Iranians? I am being serious.

Our military commitment containing Saddam was insignificant. You lie if you say otherwise. You do.

"Atttempted to cause." Ha ha. Atemmpted to cause. That’s rich.

Billy, you are truly a dead ender in service of Bush. You really are.
And just coincidentally happened to be smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, making it an ideal place to try a completely new approach to fighting terrorism - by making something else, namely an open society, more attractive.
More attractive? More attractive? What in the world is more attractive about Iraq at the moment? The freedom to kill. You are truly Strangelovian.
Color me unsurprised, since the bolded statement you were commenting on is irrefutable. (Assuming you know what the meaning of "military campaign" is, of course.)
Here is a useful definition:

military campaign
n : several related operations aimed at achieving a particular
goal (usually within geographical and temporal
constraints) [syn: campaign]

Bush’s goal in Iraq - if you believe him - was to disarm Saddam. Because Saddam had no arms, at least no WMD, this goal was not achieved. Bush’s other goal was to establish a secular democracy that would be a model for the Middle East. Bush has not done that either.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
How did Ts Anand slip thru the cracks?

As to Bush’s goals in Iraq, please read Murray Waas’s article. Bush may not have lied in the very most direct sense of the word (although that hardly excuseshim), but Rice certainly did. The mendacirty of the administration that Billy is willing to carry water for is astounding.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Hmmmm, I like it:

Put Rumsfeld on Iraqi television with Saddam behind him.

"Dear Iraqi people,

Unless you get your house in order within 2 weeks time, we will be putting Mr. Hussein back in power, with our full support as long as he no longer seeks WMD’s.

That means you, Shia, need to settle down.

Thank you."

Now, if we did that, would the anti-war folks agree with this as a good idea? And if not, why not?



 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"Good Intentions x Money + Hope = Success!"

Shouldn’t that read (correctly):

"Good Intentions x (More of)Your Tax Money + Hope = Success!" ?

 
Written By: Mike Steele
URL: http://
So I guess you think that puting the hurt in Iran is bad thing. Why are you so pro-Iranian? What’s with your love affair with Iran?
Is this non-sequitur what passes for logic among lawyers?

So being against Saddam is being pro-Iranian. I suppose that means that someone who was opposed to Ted Kazinski was pro-Eric-Rudolph. No doubt you would call anyone who threw out a defective Microsoft system pro-Apple.

If this simplistic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fluff is what passes for foreign policy analysis in your mind, no wonder you’re confused on the whole Middle East.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Most of you probably aren’t old enough to remember, but reading the "plan" reminded me of an old song. "Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying" ran through my mind. ’Course being Democrats they’d object to praying and I doubt any serious thinking took place so we’re left with "wishing and hoping".
 
Written By: Ken Hahn
URL: http://
military campaign
n : several related operations aimed at achieving a particular goal (usually within geographical and temporal constraints)


You’re ignoring the "geographical and temporal constraints" part, and confusing the campaigns with strategy.

Bush’s goal in Iraq - if you believe him

Why shouldn’t you believe him? In your response, quote what Bush has actually said, not what some BDS-victim claims he said. "Proof by hysterical assertion" is not proof.

was to disarm Saddam. Because Saddam had no arms, at least no WMD, this goal was not achieved.

Saddam used to have an army. Now he has a jail cell. He used to have WMDs (not "maybe"—definitely gassed Kurdish villages). Now he doesn’t. Maybe they were destroyed, maybe they were lost, maybe they were shipped to Syria, but he certainly doesn’t control them any more. Sounds to me like he’s been disarmed.

Bush’s other goal was to establish a secular democracy that would be a model for the Middle East. Bush has not done that either.

Has not done that YET. And if the Left would really like to see a secular democracy, they might be well advised to stop spouting anti-American diatribes and encouraging the jihadists.
 
Written By: CDeBoe
URL: http://
So if this plan works and Democrats succeed in capturing the House and Senate, if by 2008 we still have not captured or killed bin Laden will it be the Democrat’s fault?
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://www.punditmark.com
Mc-Ultra-
Enough of the "President lied people died\ culture of corruption" meme already.
People in your political camp insured that enough quibbling went on in congress to give Saddam plenty of time to hide or bury any incriminating evidence far in advance of any invasion. If for no other reason than getting us out from under the United Nation’s absolutely horrid manipulations re: Iraq, Saddam had to go.
Let me ask you- in 2003 would it have been more feasible to attack Iraq or Iran? Then, we had about 20,000 troops in one country on Iran’s border. Now, we have 130,000 troops and logistical support in four countries on Iran’s border.
This would appear to be a much more advantageous position from which to negotiate, don’t you think?
The Libyans and Syrians certainly seem to get the message.
Your comments lead me to believe that you have no clue how warfare is conducted in the field, and you see world events in MTV 3.75 second slices. You view combat like a 60’s war flick, where there aren’t any variables that weren’t scripted, and the goals were all achieved under two hours running time.
The most optimistic estimate is approximately 111,000,000 million out of just under two billion of the world’s muslims believe it’s the will of Allah that the infidel be brought under Islamic rule, violently if necessary\possible.
No compromises, death or subjugation is the goal. You can stand there with your fingers in your ears and shout over me that President Bush sucks all you want; you are a fool if you think that we have any options outside of direct confrontation and elimination of these threats as we discover them, and we have run out the clock on second-guessing ourselves and the ultimate goal of the WOT.
This conflict will last DECADES, got that? The only way involvement in the terror war stops is if we win it or lose it. Losing is not an option.
Neither is quitting, but your ilk seems determined to do anything you can to derail the mission at all costs, just so you can say I told you so.
If September 11, 2001 was unable to illuminate to you the danger to our country and indeed the world then you suffer from willful ignorance and I don’t hold out much hope that your misguided convictions will be swayed by reason.
I keep trying though...
 
Written By: Airgun
URL: http://
Y’know, I was thinking. This "plan" (yes, those are scorn quotes) is really just a list of objectives.

Now if they could enumerate plans to achieve those objectives, preferably with no "... and then a miracle occurs..." steps, and prioritize those objectives, they MIGHT convince some who reluctantly vote for Republicans to vote for them instead.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
I’m not sure they want to get OBL so much, think about it.

1) he becomes a martyr

2) there are a ton of Dhimmis in this country, to them the "War on Terror" would be over and we could go back to slashing military funding and building the welfare state. It would be a nightmare politically in regards to WOT
 
Written By: JP
URL: http://
So, what are the Democrats going to do with Iran and North Korea?

Unilaterly appease them, and declare the problem "solved." That’ll show ’em.

Or will they work with a group of countries to first condemn their quest of nuclear weapons, and have those countries, maybe back up those words with actions, such as sanctions, and dare I say it, force if neccessary??
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
A great article on why the government secretly wants the border to be open.
 
Written By: Tester
URL: http://futurist.typepad.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider