Hmmm...

[pcs]

I find this curious. The Democratic Party will not even get behind sanctions for Iran and North Korea, obvious enemies in the global war on terror. But they will rally around the political lynching of Middle Eastern allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE--their principle defense being that no Iranians, Iraqis or North Koreans were onboard the four aircraft that slammed into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. In short, I can't think of a single openly hostile nation the Democrats have considered more worthy of their muscular "anti-Islamism" than those with governments actually aiding American efforts.

 

In the unlikely event that Democrats ever again gain the reigns of government, how does attacking Middle Eastern investment in the US shape the Democratic "proposal" to redeploy to the "periphery" as they order American forces to retreat from Iraq? For all the Left's talk about "complexities" (God knows why we've let them butcher the English language so much to pluralize that word), the Democrats seem especially tinny when when it comes to comparatively simple responsibilities like being able to read a map.

[Pangloss]

It's interesting that Democrats have slid in recent polls in terms of popularity, even while the Republicans in general, and the President in particular, are hardly doing well themselves. The obvious conclusion from this is that people have a very low level of confidence in government right now. But I think there's also an underlying subtext of anger over partisanship and the way it has come to cloud reality and common sense.

 

At any rate, contradictions like the above are definitely a speed bump on the Democratic party's road to success in November. I don't share your view in the second paragraph -- I think Democrats could easily "take power", exactly as the Republicans did in 1994. They just aren't willing to take the necessary steps yet. This is a perfect example -- they're still focused on Making Bush Wrong, rather than telling us what their "better way" is.

 

It's actually kinda mind-boggling, given that neither the President nor the Vice President is running in 2008. Why focus on Bush at all anymore? It hasn't been working, and there's even more reason to stop now. Yet on they plod....

[pcs]

It's interesting that Democrats have slid in recent polls in terms of popularity, even while the Republicans in general, and the President in particular, are hardly doing well themselves. The obvious conclusion from this is that people have a very low level of confidence in government right now. But I think there's also an underlying subtext of anger over partisanship and the way it has come to cloud reality and common sense.

 

Congressional job approval has oscilated around the mid-40s for the past decade or so [1]. I'm hesitant to draw any firm conclusions regarding something as broad as public confidence, but it does appear that whenever Congress is in the national spotlight it tends to suffer in the polling.

 

At any rate, contradictions like the above are definitely a speed bump on the Democratic party's road to success in November. I don't share your view in the second paragraph -- I think Democrats could easily "take power", exactly as the Republicans did in 1994. They just aren't willing to take the necessary steps yet. This is a perfect example -- they're still focused on Making Bush Wrong, rather than telling us what their "better way" is.

 

Here I definitely have to disagree. In 1994, something like 45 of the 54 Democratic seats Republicans took in the House were open (six in the Senate). Right now, the Democrats have something like 15 open and contested seats, most of which sit in districts Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. One thing is for certain, absent some unforeseen dynamic like 67 congressmen vacating their seats for early retirement in 1994, we're not going to see anything like that midterm for any party for a long time.

 

It's actually kinda mind-boggling, given that neither the President nor the Vice President is running in 2008. Why focus on Bush at all anymore? It hasn't been working, and there's even more reason to stop now. Yet on they plod....

 

Because it is the only unifying national agenda the Democrats have right now. Whatever policy agenda the DNC and Congressional Democrats allegedly intend to release "in a matter of weeks" (which is already an election and a year behind schedule), you have to wonder how thoroughly watered down it will have to be to stick with the governors?

[Jim]

It's interesting that Democrats have slid in recent polls in terms of popularity' date=' even while the Republicans in general, and the President in particular, are hardly doing well themselves. The obvious conclusion from this is that people have a very low level of confidence in government right now. But I think there's also an underlying subtext of anger over partisanship and the way it has come to cloud reality and common sense.

 

At any rate, contradictions like the above are definitely a speed bump on the Democratic party's road to success in November. I don't share your view in the second paragraph -- I think Democrats could easily "take power", exactly as the Republicans did in 1994. They just aren't willing to take the necessary steps yet. This is a perfect example -- they're still focused on Making Bush Wrong, rather than telling us what their "better way" is.

 

It's actually kinda mind-boggling, given that neither the President nor the Vice President is running in 2008. Why focus on Bush at all anymore? It hasn't been working, and there's even more reason to stop now. Yet on they plod....[/quote']

 

Dems need an equivalent of the "Contract with America." Frankly, I have no idea what that would be for the Dems.

[Sisyphus]

Democrats are bizarrely fixated on making Bush wrong, it's true. And it is even more bizarre considering he's a second term president. But perhaps there is some reason for it. For example, the Republican Party in recent years has become all about unquestioning loyalty to the President, in both their words and the President's. Dissension is betrayal to both party and country, in that order. Hence, John McCain is widely disliked by Republicans. Primary reason: "He doesn't support the President enough." So in a very real way, making Bush wrong is making them all wrong, and it's working. That, in my opinion, is why we're starting to see rebellion among the Republican party, even in stuff that doesn't really make any sense, like this Dubai thing. I think it would be very, very easy for the Democrats to take advantage of this. Of course, it also should have been very, very easy to defeat Bush in 2004, so I have much faith in the Democratic leadership to fail at easy political tasks.

[pcs]

Democrats are bizarrely fixated on making Bush wrong, it's true. And it is even more bizarre considering he's a second term president.

 

It's not so bizarre. Republicans did the same thing during the Clinton administration, and they so far as actually impeaching the guy in his second term after losing seats in the 1998 midterms.

[bascule]

The Democratic Party will not even get behind sanctions for Iran and North Korea

 

Bush ceased pursuing A.Q. Khan, the former head of the international nuclear black market, who sold the technologies upon which Iran and North Korea built their nuclear programs, during the 2002 ramp-up to the Iraq war. Now North Korea is a nuclear power, and Iran grows ever closer. Oops.

 

But they will rally around the political lynching of Middle Eastern allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE

 

Well let's see, Pakistan harbors A.Q. Khan, refuses to let the US or IAEA interview him, and refuses to hold him accountable for his actions since he's considered a national hero.

 

Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahhabis, the radical fundamentalist Islamic movement to which the majority of Al Qaeda members ascribe.

 

But really this whole thread is just trollbait, so I'm foolish to respond in the first place.

[pcs]

Bush ceased pursuing A.Q. Khan...

 

This is almost dumb a claim as "Bush ceased pursuing Osama bin Laden," even more so considering that AQ Khan--a single man--was not the target; the network he was plugged into was.

 

Well let's see, Pakistan harbors A.Q. Khan...

 

What purpose does it serve to go after one man who lay several removes from a transfer terminus? To ease your mind? Does one guy really scare you that much?

 

Khan's been removed from his position, and joint US-Pakistani field work has uncovered the network that employed him and sharply reduced the proliferation risk. That work continues. So here's another example of the opposition seeing the trees despite the forest.

 

Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahhabis, the radical fundamentalist Islamic movement to which the majority of Al Qaeda members ascribe.

 

The common religious denominator in al Qaeda is Salafism; the key operational sheikhs are all Salafis as is Bin Laden himself. Either way, there are Salafis and Wahhabis in the US as well, do we propose that Americans should wage state war against themselves? So you'll jump on countries for their religious proclivities, but not those not only pursuing nuclear weapons but also, as a matter of state policy, sponsoring anti-American terrorism or threatening their neighbors with invasion? Fascinating

 

I'm foolish to respond in the first place.

 

When you propose "swatting flies" as viable operational art, then I find it hard to disagree with you. But since it reflects the opposition's new-found national security agenda, I suppose i can forgive you for that.

[Sisyphus]

Wahhabism and Salafism are the same thing. Bin Laden has never claimed any particular sect of Islam, but he was raised in a Wahhabi family and quotes Wahhabi scholars.

[pcs]

Wahhabism and Salafism are the same thing.

 

No they're not, and I dare you to say as much to a Salafi's face. You might as well call a Baptist a Phelpsian.

 

Bin Laden has never claimed any particular sect of Islam, but he was raised in a Wahhabi family and quotes Wahhabi scholars.

 

He was raised in a Salafi family, but he is a Qutbist. Are we to start branding all Salafis as such?

[bascule]

pcs, do you deliberately bait with misinformation or are you in some kind of reality distortion field to where you actually believe what you bilge?

[pcs]

pcs, do you deliberately bait with misinformation or are you in some kind of reality distortion field to where you actually believe what you bilge?

 

I don't bait. Definitely don't believe in "bilge." I can't say I'm astounded by your position, it's not like we haven't heard it before from countless others. But that brings us back to the OP. I don't understand this shallow fixation on the whereabouts of two or three people in Pakistan and allies with internal security problems; especially when the opposition foreswears any genuinely muscular action towards entire states that as course of policy declare or support armed hostility against the West.

[Sisyphus]

No they're not' date=' and I dare you to say as much to a Salafi's face. You might as well call a Baptist a Phelpsian.

 

 

 

He was raised in a Salafi family, but he is a Qutbist. Are we to start branding all Salafis as such?[/quote']

 

Wahhab refers to the founder of the school of thought. It's adherants tend to consider the term perjorative, because they don't consider it to be the interpretation of one teacher, but rather true Islam itself. This is consistent with Bin Laden's not identifying himself as any particular sect, but rather a "true Muslim." They consider themselves the true heirs to the early days of Islam, and hence prefer to be called "Salaf as-Salih," meaning "pious predecessors," or even "al-Muwahhidun," meaning "the monotheists." This is a modern distinction, however, much like black/negro. "Wahhab" is still generally considered inoffensive in Saudi Arabia. Qutbism is a school of thought within the Wahhabi/Salafi.

[Pangloss]

That, in my opinion, is why we're starting to see rebellion among the Republican party, even in stuff that doesn't really make any sense, ....

 

Well, there may be a bit of ideological shifting, but I think it's really more due to the President's low numbers and his lack of a clear successor, which means that Republican candidates have no choice but to distance themselves from the administration.

[Pangloss]

This is turning into quite an interesting thread in a number of ways, from the politics of congressional elections to the politics of Islamic sectarianism.

[pcs]

Wahhab refers to the founder of the school of thought.

 

Wahhab isn't the founder of Salafism. He was a Salafi revivalist in the 18th century. His stature amongst Salafis is no greater and probably significantly less than contemporary Saudi thinkers like Baz.

 

This is consistent with Bin Laden's not identifying himself as any particular sect, but rather a "true Muslim."

 

Of course it is, Wahhab was a Salafi. We might as well point to Billy Graham as the nexus of modern traditional Protestantism.

[pcs]

Well, there may be a bit of ideological shifting, but I think it's really more due to the President's low numbers and his lack of a clear successor, which means that Republican candidates have no choice but to distance themselves from the administration.

 

I can't see any evidence of an ideological shift. The bulk of criticism over the DP World flap from conservatives comes from outside the security establishment and the shipping industry, and in this case it's fed by a political decision not to expend political capital to make the case to the American people. I don't and can't know how much we could risk revealing, but this looks more and more like a case of good security policy simply playing out as bad politics. Because the full extent of Gulf State participation in the War on Terror cannot be freely discussed, leaving the Opposition and the mainstream media a free hand to frame a national security agenda over the perceived failings of our allies. Which brings us back to my main point, whether or not the Opposition's opportunism here reflects their fundamental disinterest and, by extension, trustworthiness on matters related to national security.