Re: WSJ: how to sound like a hawk without being one
Nathan Newman wrote:
Nathan Newman wrote:
So isn’t it better to sound like a hawk than to be one? Wouldn’t you rather Dems score points by bashing UAE emirs than advocating killing more Iraqi civilians?
No. I’d rather they’d drop sounding like hawks. This is idiotic posturing of a low but all-too-typical sort.
And your purity on opposing any “posturing” is politically insane.
Bush’s whole basis to lead wars is based on his credibility in being dedicated to fighting terrorism. To the extend that credibility is undercut and is seen as being more loyal to oil interests than the American people, it makes new wars far less likely.
No, it reinforces the “permanent war” master narrative, and makes wars more likely, since in the unlikely case that a Dem wins based on this nonsense, he (or she) would have to start a war as proof of toughness. Dems can’t out-tough the Reps; Kerry tried, and it blew up in his face. They’re not convincing as the Tough Daddy party and never will be.
Doug