Sen Bayh: "So today, I say to Mr. Rove and his fellow partisan strategists

[understandinglife]

... You have thrown down the gauntlet, and we will pick it up. As a lifelong Democrat I welcome this debate, because it is one we can win. George W. Bush's saying he wants the 2006 election to be about national security is like Herbert Hoover proudly claiming that the 1930 election should be a referendum on the economy. And if the Democratic Party can get its national security act together, the result should be the same.

Karl Rove has claimed that Democrats are too weak to defend the nation, that President Bush is simply tougher. Tough is good, but six years into the Bush Presidency it is clear that tough is not enough. We need a foreign policy that is both tough... and smart. The good news? That is the historic legacy of the Democratic Party.

As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do.

To my party, I urge that we do not change the subject or attempt to avoid this fight. It is our chance, and responsibility, to show the American people that we are tough enough and smart enough to protect this great country in perilous and uncertain times.

And to Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. ... Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration's stewardship of America's security. ... For this is the right debate for the country and the right debate for the Democratic Party. And for the sake of our nation's security, it's a debate we must win.

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bayh/a-tough-and-smart-nationa_b_15387.html

One gets the sense that the Dem folk inside the beltway are beginning to listen ... and, more importantly, to act.


Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

1. Same thing as Hillary just a few days ago!

Wow, maybe the DLC dems are getting it now!

[wryter2000]

6. That's what I'm hoping

DiFi has been making great noises, too. We need these people on our side.

[Lerkfish]

8. from your lips to God's ears! if the DLC finally gets its, I'll stop

criticizing them.

[jsamuel]

2. MUCH BETTER!

it's all in the WAY he stated it...

could have been better though... Bush "tough"???

[rpgamerd00d]

3. OMG, Dems with huevos ?! Go Dems!

:D

[understandinglife]

4. Lorelei Kelly: "National Security: Rove's Achille's Heel"

<clip>

Then this week Rove's employer rolled out a defense strategy and a federal budget that hearkens back to approximately 1985. But definitely pre-9/11. Why? Because the Bush Administration -- with its profoundly wrong world view -- refuses to lay out a strong and effective defense strategy for post-9/11 threats. One primary lesson from both Iraq and Afghanistan is that the way to keep our military strong is to share the responsibilities for national security across the government -- made obvious by the gaps in our post-war reconstruction efforts. Defense is just one part of a national security strategy, but the vast majority of security dollars go to the defense budget (over half a trillion dollars for 2007).

Re-balancing spending across the government is the work of decades, but today we're draining the coffers of defense to purchase billions of dollars worth of weapons designed to thwart the Soviet Union. This must stop. These "pre-9/11" priorities are being foisted on us when our National Guard troops need basic items like trucks, ammo and language training.

Ever since Katrina, our commander-in-chief has lost credibility on the issue that he ran on: national security. Many Americans have a nagging, uncomfortable feeling that these guys really don't know what they are talking about. Its time for liberals to hit back hard. This will require renewed interest, updated language and a national security lead on every issue that comes up in public conversation. We must not let Rove be right.

<clip>

More at the Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorelei-kelly/national-security-roves_b_15381.html

Indeed.


Peace.

[shoelace414]

5. At the end of WW1

the european powers were TOUGH on Germany, which caused WW2

At the end of WW2, we were smart dealing with Germany, which caused peace and prosperity

[understandinglife]

11. "At the end of WW2, we were smart dealing with Germany, which caused peace

... and prosperity

So true.

An elegant, pragmatic National Security plan should begin with one simple principle: "Don't make enemies, build partnerships."

Everyone on the planet knows America can vaporize them in a nanosecond. What most of them now fear is that Bush and the neoconsters are crazy enough to do it, over and over and over again. And, then we wonder why they hate us.

"Smart" is definitely something the Dems can bring to the strategy, and Rep. Murtha has already demonstrated what smart and decisive means.


Peace.

[MadMaddie]

13. At the end of WWII...we had leaders who...

Had insight on how to handle Germany after the fighting had stopped, there were plans which were already created by the end of the war.

The current leadership in this country can't see beyond the end of their noses. They are not long term planners, I am fairly confident in my belief they really don't know what damaging effects their domestic spending cuts will have on the country. The Medicaid debacle is a perfect example....

This country is going to be in for some hard times.... I guarantee the first people that will complain about it are the neo-con fundies...they will be the ones that are surprised...

[seabeyond]

7. damn good, you go guy. arent we NOT suppose to like him?

i like him. get in htere and kick some ass. yee haw

[wisteria]

9. I'm glad they are coming along, Kerry however has been saying

this all along. I hope they give him credit and not just try to pander.

[seabeyond]

10. yes, kerry has been saying this. kerry also put exit plan from iraq

first, but get little to no recognition for it. people talk about murtha, and they do it as if he is the only one. kerry did it about two weeks before murtha, might have been the push for murtha. and cool things exploded with murtha letting subject be talked about. but.... kerry wa a good couple weeks ahead of murtha

[emulatorloo]

14. Plenty of statements along these lines - Kerry/Bush debate #1 2004

transcript here:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

[mzmolly]

12. Tough? BUSH ISN'T TOUGH!? DAGBLASTIT! !@!#$%

Overall this is a great statement, but I take issue with remarks like these:

"Tough is good, but six years into the Bush Presidency it is clear that tough is not enough."

This statement is agreeing with Rove that * is tough!?

Why the hell don't our elected Democrats remind people that Bush is !@$ WEAK!


* HE oversaw the greatest national security breech EVER ON 911 ignoring SEVERAL WARNINGS.
* HE failed to capture OBL after proclaiming "dead or alive."
* HE took this nation into an unnecessary war which is distracting us from the REAL war on terror, and creating MORE terrorist sentiment every day!
* HE diverted our resources to the point where we can't tackle the REAL threats to our democracy - even diplomatically as we have our hands tied and the world knows it.
* HE failed to implement a strategy that could handle ANY disaster and Katrina showed demonstrated that!

"Being tough isn't enough?"

Sorry, not only is * a dumb-ass - as Bayh points out - but he's WEAK!

WEAK!!!!

/RANT

[NightOwwl]

15. Excellent point....

I agree with you 100%. Let me add to your list:

*HE sat for 7 minutes reading "My Pet Goat" while people were jumping to their deaths.
*HE didn't show up at Ground Zero until 3 DAYS after the attack.

Bush is WEAK on national security!

[mzmolly]

17. Thank YOU. I so tire of playing this game on their terms, or capitulating

to the BULLSHIT idea that Bush is tough on anything but his freaking liver.

;)

[mzmolly]

16. Sorry folks, don't want to kill enthusiasm, this is just one of my pet

peeves.

Go on with the kudos! :hi:

[flpoljunkie]

18. "Our fellow citizens have doubts about us" because you and some other Dems

parrot this very effective Republican slur. And what do you mean by "if the Democratic Party can get its national security act together..."

What don't you and other Dems meet this inane accusation head on? Osama bin Laden attacks us on 9/11, after Bush ignored the infamous August 6th PDB warning of his determination to attack us. Bush bombs training camps in Afghanistan and then, rather than tracking down and killing bin Laden, pulls the troops and intelligence personnel out of Afghanistan and proceeds to prepare to invade Iraq, leaving Osama on the loose with us no longer "on the hunt."

The Bush administration is inept and incompetent; they took this nation to war in Iraq by "cherry picking" intelligence and have failed miserably. We are less safe and on the way to spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq with what to show for it? Iraq is a mess, and on the verge of civil war.

Bush has made a mess, and someone else is going to have to clean it up. A Democratic president, I hope.

[mzmolly]

19. We are on the same page.

Frustrating.

[Coexist]

20. Huzzah! I like this part?

<snip>
"They urge that we change the subject to domestic issues that work better for Democrats. Others argue that it is wrong to inject "politics" into something as important as National Security."

Have they been reading DU??!