October 15, 2006

A Credible Foreign Policy

This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday Leann Hansen talked to Michael O'Hanlon who told her that Democrats had to get a credible foreign policy or they would never be trusted by the American public to keep them safe. (I'll provide a link when there is one available.) It was a really annoying interview because he kept saying (and Leann never questioned) that Democrats have got to come up with a new policy because they aren't tough enough and still represent the failures of Vietnam. He expressed great love for what Reagan did for the military - by "strengthening our military" while "not engaging in too much fighting" because the military doesn't really like war unless it's necessary. Never mind all the people who died in Central America in Ronny's little wars, they obviously don't count.

In O'Hanlon's eyes, Democrats are still suffering from the Vietnam syndrome and Republicans are still the saviors of the military. Oh yeah? Is he actually living in today's reality? What about the complete screw-up of the foreign policy by the neocons? Who's responsible for the "hollowed out" military we have today? And who's losing the war in Iraq?

As Matt said, O'Hanlon is a terrible person to listen to in regards to foreign policy and defense because he is one of the PNAC Democrats. He is one of the advocates for the American Empire. He is unable to imagine a world where true safety comes from an interconnected and respectful alliance with others that does not make the US the king of the world. Aspiring to be an empire is precisely what has caused so much damage to our nation's image, our ideals and now our safety.

What would it take before O'Hanlon figures out that his approach to national security is wrong? Is he so stuck on his dreams of empire that he cannot listen to the words of some of our true warrior heroes like Wesley Clark or Anthony Zinni? And Atrios is right, anyone really looking at history would have opposed the Iraq venture because it was the "stupidest fucking foreign policy decision in the history of the universe."

And who at NPR booked O'Hanlon without booking someone else to refute his crap? Are they also incapable of seeing and admitting the total failure of the PNAC? Americans have figured out that whatever you call it, the Republican claim to being good on national defense is not only hot-air, but also deadly wrong.

Posted by Mary at October 15, 2006 08:25 AM | War on Terrorism | Technorati links |
Comments

Well, I think Bush had his cards:
1)He had Saddam who attacked Kuwait
2)He had saudi-arabia, some rich scheichs who were afraid of both: lunatics like Oussama and Saddam.
3)he had some other cards in the region, for example some Dubai desirin for more.

The downside: Everybody knew Saddam was the alter ego of the moolahs in the region. If you look for example at Mehlman and his turnovers you dont expect every Moolah to like him. The Muslim world is surely protectin itself thru a rigid anti-turnover what is for example to be seen in the role of women.
You can for example protect land thru anti-turnovers.
Now Bush produces a lot of turnover for example thru buyin weapons. The US weapon complex is not a close circle like under nazis for example where you use slave labor, but its a clear buy. So I guess everybody down there will somehow have recognized that Bush is stirring some fuzz and its not exactly clear how the story will end. In fact Bush is presnting the opposite of a Muslim and he better gets an idea how to win the hearts of the muslims.
Hes not the abolisher of weapons of mass destruction nor did he abolish the torture of Saddam.
Another point also is the media: Bush started out in the territory of +1 to 4 when the Iraq war started. Saddam was evil, the regime rotten.
Now Bush didnt present what he himself dealt: WMDs and a stop to torture.
He himself put up the media hole.
I think the most hypocritical assessment of Mehlman and Rove and the others is that the media works against the Repugs intentionally.
The media would never have "lied" or even put up some opposition against Bush if he didnt put up his own stakes. If he kept it a war against terror and skipped Saddam and his torture just insinuating Saddam was supporting terror the whole problem had never occured.
the current ping-pong show between the repugs and the media was fabricated by themselves though they never expected it to end like this
So Bush is at two fronts now: Hes at a dead point with the Iraqis and at a dead point with the media.
I really dont get how they draw the conclusion just to stand around in Iraq for 3 years

Posted by: ccoaler at October 15, 2006 01:28 PM

O'Hanlon is one of the most frequent guests on FOX News. No surprise.

Posted by: Eli Stephens at October 15, 2006 07:47 PM