Is any Dem likely to be a hawk now?

O

Onceler

New member
The whole "who is more hawkish" side-debate re: Hillary & Obama got me thinking: I wonder if any Democrat at this point can avoid being what most would consider a hawk.

I have long thought that Hillary will err on the side of hawkish when it comes to terror & foreign policy, just because of the pressure of being the 1st woman President, and not wanting to reinforce the common fear expressed about that. She would overcompensate, even if it went against her instincts. I think we've already seen some of that.

Looking at it objectively, I think any Democrat is in the same position since 9/11. It is baseless, but the common perception is that Democrats are soft on terror & soft on foreign policy, and this is a huge part of why one of the worst Presidents in history is actually a 2-termer. I think there will be enormous pressure on whoever the Dems select to err on the side of aggressive, which is extremely unfortunate, because the whole WOT needs a complete & uncompromising overhaul.
 
What’s really sad about what you are saying here is that, dems are no longer perceived as being soft on national security. Polls have been showing that they have actually gained a slight edge over republicans on that. I mean, bush has been SO bad that he actually appears to have reversed a common misconception (which the R’s carefully and using great resources, created) that has been in play since after the end of the Vietnam war.

BUT, the media still believes that! And so you don’t know that the majority of Americans don't believe that. And apparently because the stupid democrats spend far more time bullshitting with dopes like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert at cocktail parties, they don’t know it either!
 
Darla said:
What’s really sad about what you are saying here is that, dems are no longer perceived as being soft on national security. Polls have been showing that they have actually gained a slight edge over republicans on that. I mean, bush has been SO bad that he actually appears to have reversed a common misconception (which the R’s carefully and using great resources, created) that has been in play since after the end of the Vietnam war.

BUT, the media still believes that! And so you don’t know that the majority of Americans don't believe that. And apparently because the stupid democrats spend far more time bullshitting with dopes like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert at cocktail parties, they don’t know it either!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have seen that, but I think that is VERY fragile, and I think most elected Democrats probably see it as very fragile. All it will take is one attack on American soil under a Dem admin - it doesn't matter if it's the week of inauguration & there was nothing the President could have done - and that's out the window....
 
I hear the music of the twilight zone playing when I read this thread...
 
Onceler said:
The whole "who is more hawkish" side-debate re: Hillary & Obama got me thinking: I wonder if any Democrat at this point can avoid being what most would consider a hawk.

I have long thought that Hillary will err on the side of hawkish when it comes to terror & foreign policy, just because of the pressure of being the 1st woman President, and not wanting to reinforce the common fear expressed about that. She would overcompensate, even if it went against her instincts. I think we've already seen some of that.

Looking at it objectively, I think any Democrat is in the same position since 9/11. It is baseless, but the common perception is that Democrats are soft on terror & soft on foreign policy, and this is a huge part of why one of the worst Presidents in history is actually a 2-termer. I think there will be enormous pressure on whoever the Dems select to err on the side of aggressive, which is extremely unfortunate, because the whole WOT needs a complete & uncompromising overhaul.
Click to expand...

Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, Edwards, were the only candidates who appeared to be fully committed to a withdrawl from iraq.

What were left with now, is who will be able to competently manage a reduction of the war in iraq, and a slow (hopefully) gracefull drawdown. The Democrats are not the party of peace, nor have they been hugely different than the GOP on matters of national security for the last half century.

My vote (as it pertains to iraq - now that Edwards is out), is which candidate is most likely to provide leadership to manage a slow deescalation of the war. Its sad, but there it is.
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, I have seen that, but I think that is VERY fragile, and I think most elected Democrats probably see it as very fragile. All it will take is one attack on American soil under a Dem admin - it doesn't matter if it's the week of inauguration & there was nothing the President could have done - and that's out the window....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that could be. I know that I have remained stunned that Bush ran for re-election on the platform of “Vote for me, 3,000 Americans died on my watch, so you know I can keep you safe and Democrats can’t” And that Rudy is running on the exact same platform.

I have no doubt that any democrat would have eventually been impeached by a Republican Congress if they were at the helm on 9/11.
 
WRL said:
long term, if we stay committed, absolutely. Far more than you may imagine today.
Click to expand...

Ooooh....SO close. Unfortunately, the answer is "no."

Read any NIE over the past 2-3 years. We are not safer. Iraq is a cause celebre for global, anti-American terrorist groups. We have diverted our attention, focus & resources away from real threats, like local pods, and alientated allies who we need to work with for intelligence on small, start-up groups outside of the Middle East (again, the most likely ones to mount an attack against us).

We have created an entire new generation of terrorists & terrorist leaders.

So, nice try, but Iraq - already a disaster on so many levels - has made us much less safe, for both the short & long term. Thanks for supporting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top