What Democrats should be saying

[Sauron]

Paul Begala, via TPM:

Democrats should seize this moment to attack the rubber-stamp Republicans for their lemming-like devotion to a failed strategy and a set of incompetent and dishonest leaders. Republicans have a faith-based Iraq policy. They have faith in Donald Rumsfeld, they have faith in Dick Cheney, they have faith in George W. Bush. We don’t. They are liars and nincompoops – and the lives of tens of thousands of our best are in their hands.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.” Every time they say we’re weak, we should say real strength is standing up to your president and your party when American lives are on the line. When they attack our patriotism, we should challenge them to sign their kids up for the military: “Since when did the sons and daughters of working people corner the market on patriotism, Senator? If this war is so wonderful, so noble, so vital, why the hell is your son throwing up on his date at Ivy League frat parties?”

In short, Democrats can and will win the debate over the war in Iraq not by playing defense (pleading “We’re NOT for cut and run!”) but on offense: the Republican Congress has blindly backed a failed strategy that has left 2,500 Americans dead, 20,000 wounded, and put us $2 trillion in the hole.

[LionsDen]

Yep, I'd like to see Democrats speak clearly about what they really believe... especially those up for re-election!

[Godless Dave]

The problem is, too many Democrats get campaign donations from oil companies and defense contractors. Such a stance would also conflict with the DNC's strategy of losing as many elections as possible.

[ManM]

Perhaps the democrats would have a better chance if they presented solutions that a majority of Americans support.

[Dingfod]

They do on many issues, ManM. The majority of Americans think Americans should have univeral health care. The majority of Americans think the government should take care of the poor and helpless. The majority of Americans think Iraq is a quagmire that America needs to extract itself from.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ManM

Perhaps the democrats would have a better chance if they presented solutions

There, i cut off the extra bit at the end for you.

The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they're so cowed by the Republican political machine that they're unwilling to propose solutions to the issues facing the country for fear that the Repubs (as they most certainly will) will have nasty things to say about them on television.

Democrats need to stand the fuck up and articulate their stance on each issue without regard for what the Republicans are going to say in return, so they can stop pretending to be Republicans-Lite and actually get somethgin done.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by ManM

Perhaps the democrats would have a better chance if they presented solutions that a majority of Americans support.

Don't count on that happening.

A few brave democrats tried it... Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, the democrat who endorsed President Bush at the Republican convention.

Hundreds of Democrat office holders have changed parties because the democrat party opposes genuine reform.

Conservatives offer solutions. Liberals offer rhetoric.

[ManM]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

They do on many issues, ManM. The majority of Americans think Americans should have univeral health care. The majority of Americans think the government should take care of the poor and helpless. The majority of Americans think Iraq is a quagmire that America needs to extract itself from.

Those aren't solutions. The majority of Americans support universal health care? Ok, but how do we go about making sure that people are covered? Does the government run it? Is to be handled by private industry? Do we put the burden on the employers? How much responsibility do we place on individuals? Solutions are made up of detailed plans; they don't end with the identification of a desired outcome. Sure, we agree on problems, but it seems the Democratic strategy is to point at the problem, complain that the Republicans aren't fixing it, and leave it at that. Are we supposed to simply have faith that the Democrats really do have a better plan? I want to see them put their cards out on the table. If they do have actual plans, put them out there so we can analyze them and decide whether they are better than the Republican plans.

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Conservatives offer solutions. Liberals offer rhetoric.

Nice rhetoric. Your side's solutions aren't working out so hot, and if the Dems ever do reveal a decent strategy, you are in deep trouble. A demonstrably bad plan is better than no plan, but people tend to give untested new plans a shot when the current plan is fubar.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by ManM

Those aren't solutions. The majority of Americans support universal health care? Ok, but how do we go about making sure that people are covered? Does the government run it? Is to be handled by private industry? Do we put the burden on the employers? How much responsibility do we place on individuals? Solutions are made up of detailed plans; they don't end with the identification of a desired outcome. Sure, we agree on problems, but it seems the Democratic strategy is to point at the problem, complain that the Republicans aren't fixing it, and leave it at that. Are we supposed to simply have faith that the Democrats really do have a better plan? I want to see them put their cards out on the table. If they do have actual plans, put them out there so we can analyze them and decide whether they are better than the Republican plans.

Socialized healthcare is always a disaster. Ask Canadians who reject their FREE care to PAY for US care. The Democrat plan is always the same: RAISE TAXES and SPEND.

Nice rhetoric. Your side's solutions aren't working out so hot, and if the Dems ever do reveal a decent strategy, you are in deep trouble. A demonstrably bad plan is better than no plan, but people tend to give untested new plans a shot when the current plan is fubar.

The best plan for healthcare is NO PLAN. Cut off gov't funding of healthcare and medicine. Prices will fall. If local gov't or private charities want to fund medical care, fine. But making the federal gov't pay harms the system.

I agree that "my side" has erred. They are trying to buy votes. The libertarian policy (no taxes for healthcare funding at all) is better than that of my Republican party.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Socialized healthcare is always a disaster. Ask Canadians who reject their FREE care to PAY for US care.

With morals loose I reproduce
Each daft O'Reilly fable...

Now, let's see. Privatized healthcare is always a disaster. Ask Americans who ignore their market-driven services to use Canadian single-payer based care.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ManM

Those aren't solutions. The majority of Americans support universal health care? Ok, but how do we go about making sure that people are covered?

Of course the claim that no solutions are on offer can always be shored up by stipulating that no counterexample counts as a real solution. The No True Solution gambit, one might say... It's a fallacy to at least be aware of.

In any case I think Dingfod was counting on readers to be aware that a substantive proposal for more universal health care was indeed floated by a Democrat President within recent memory. And as Adam correctly observes, the Dems let themselves be cowed, and let the debate get framed, by the GOP Scream Machine. (And the HMOs, and Big Pharma.)

A demonstrably bad plan is better than no plan, but people tend to give untested new plans a shot when the current plan is fubar.

What, exactly, is the demonstrably bad plan you seem to attribute to the Republicans here, and how does it count as an actual plan, by the standards according to which the Democrats don't have a plan? One hopes this isn't just floating standards at work.

[BibleBelted]

The best plan for healthcare is NO PLAN. Cut off gov't funding of healthcare and medicine. Prices will fall. If local gov't or private charities want to fund medical care, fine. But making the federal gov't pay harms the system.

WTF? Fox News open a branch office here or something?

Any explanation why administrative costs of our "free market" health care system run above 40%, while our "bureaucratic mess" Medicare runs about 3%?

I could just tell you, but I'm interested in hearing the GOPer line.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

The Democrat plan is always the same: RAISE TAXES and SPEND.

As opposed to the rep plan which seems to have receltly changed to: LOWER TAXES and SPEND.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by BibleBelted

Any explanation why administrative costs of our "free market" health care system run above 40%, while our "bureaucratic mess" Medicare runs about 3%?

Oh, that? That old thing, and things like it? Huh, funny you should ask. It's, umm, because of liberals.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by ManM

Perhaps the democrats would have a better chance if they presented solutions that a majority of Americans support.

Gee, let's think about that for a moment.....

1. Most American want out of Iraq, and see the whole war as having been a failure and too costly.
2. That is also a Democratic position.
Question: So how come it isn't happening?

1. Most Americans support fully funding Social Security.
2. That is also a Democratic position.
Question: so how come that isn't happening either?

Answer: "solutions that a majority of Americans support" is naive and simplistic, since it fails to take into account how political power is maintained and wielded in this country.

[BibleBelted]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Oh, that? That old thing, and things like it? Huh, funny you should ask. It's, umm, because of liberals.

Fucking liberals. Always trying to sabotage the supernatural power of unrestrained capitalism to make all things work together for good, the way God intended.

And don't think God hasn't noticed. It's no coincidence that we never had school shootings or gay people before the godless libs broke up Standard Oil and passed all those pussy anti-child labor laws.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Crumb

As opposed to the rep plan which seems to have receltly changed to: LOWER TAXES and SPEND.

Correction: Lower TAXES and BORROW, thus driviing up interest rates.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Socialized healthcare is always a disaster.

No, it isn't. In fact, the top countries in the world (by health/living standards) all have socialized healthcare.

Ask Canadians who reject their FREE care to PAY for US care.

Why don't you prove that:
1. any such Canadians exist in any significant numbers; and then
2. prove that they are a majority

The Democrat plan is always the same: RAISE TAXES and SPEND.

Naw. The Democratic plan is take care of America first, and pay for whatever you order.

The GOP plan is help the uber-rich, screw everyone else, and borrow money to make it all work.

The best plan for healthcare is NO PLAN.

Wrong.

Cut off gov't funding of healthcare and medicine. Prices will fall.

Interesting claim. Let's see you prove it. Then cross-correlate with quality.

If local gov't or private charities want to fund medical care, fine. But making the federal gov't pay harms the system.

No it doesn't.

[ManM]

Originally Posted by Clutch

What, exactly, is the demonstrably bad plan you seem to attribute to the Republicans here, and how does it count as an actual plan, by the standards according to which the Democrats don't have a plan? One hopes this isn't just floating standards at work.

When I wrote that, I specifically had terrorism in mind. The Democratic plan for combating terrorism is as follows:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

Taking the first point, the Republicans have made it clear that they are going to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and destroy terrorist networks by implementing various domestic and international spying programs to locate the terrorist networks, and by applying military force overseas in order to kill terrorists and deny them safe territories. The Democrats and Republicans are on the same page until that part in italics. However, while the Republicans have something solid I can put in italics, the Democrats don’t. The part about eliminating Osama Bin Laden is a great goal, but there is no coherent explanation of how they would go about doing it. Is the second point supposed to be it? They didn’t connect it with the first, so am I supposed to assume that the Democrats believe an increase in Special Forces and HUMINT is going to eliminate Bin Laden and terrorist cells? At best, there are gaps that need to be filled.

On to the third point. The Republicans are going to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive. They will combat those things by invading the countries they deem to be hotbeds of terrorism and putting into place governments that they believe will do a better job of making the people of the country wealthier and happier. Again, that part in italics is what the Democrats are missing. They point to it and bitch about it, but what are they replacing it with?

Moving on: secure loose materials? Is this something special that the Democrats are planning to do that the Republicans have ignored?

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons? Well, the Republicans are trying to stop weapons development by using economic sanctions, offering incentives, and military posturing. What are the Democrats going to do? Any information?

To borrow their rhetoric, this is supposed to be a part of a bold and comprehensive plan for providing real security. However, reading through it leaves me with far more questions than answers.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ManM

When I wrote that, I specifically had terrorism in mind.

Okay. That wasn't clear, but fair enough.

The Democratic plan for combating terrorism is as follows:

Is that the plan in its entirety, or a press release "talking points" document?

Taking the first point, the Republicans have made it clear that they are going to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and destroy terrorist networks by implementing various domestic and international spying programs to locate the terrorist networks, and by applying military force overseas in order to kill terrorists and deny them safe territories.

I see. How are they going to "apply military force overseas" in a way that will eliminate Osama Bin Laden? I don't see any specifics there.

Of course, obvious specific measures that would pretty plausibly fit in there would be plans to improve intelligence, and to beef up the manpower of the military. Still more specifically, this could be done partly by making the career less off-putting -- by giving them better personal gear, and a GI "bill of rights" to head off the sort of nasty bait-and-switches they've had under the Republicans. Who do you suppose very specifically says that these concrete measures will be taken? The Dems. In the very document you're quoting from. Same page, in fact.

The Democrats and Republicans are on the same page until that part in italics. However, while the Republicans have something solid I can put in italics, the Democrats don’t.

What a fascinating interpretation of an (alleged) Republican vague promise minus any clear implementation, in comparison to multiple relatively specific Democrat plans.

The Republicans are going to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive. They will combat those things by invading the countries they deem to be hotbeds of terrorism and putting into place governments that they believe will do a better job of making the people of the country wealthier and happier. Again, that part in italics is what the Democrats are missing. They point to it and bitch about it, but what are they replacing it with?

I suspect they're expecting readers to be aware of the manifest fact, or at least to pick up on the obvious implicature, that invading Iraq doesn't seem to have eliminated a terrorist breeding ground. Perhaps they expect too much, but that's what I imagine they thought. So the utterly natural interpretation is that they will be cleverly adopting non-invasion-and-occupation approaches to the problem. I accept that they do not specify all or any of the obvious tools that one might use to this end, such as targeted aid, skilled diplomacy, trade sanctions, trade rewards, humanitarian interventions, and the like. It seemed pretty clear to me that these and other policies would be at their disposal. Again, this seemed rather more obvious to me than any alleged connection between invading countries in the manner of Iraq and somehow ending up with governments that create happiness. That seemed the particularly egregious "implementation gap".

reading through it leaves me with far more questions than answers.

I know that feeling.

[ManM]

Originally Posted by Clutch

Is that the plan in its entirety, or a press release "talking points" document?

Originally Posted by Website

Today, Democratic leaders across the country will join House and Senate Democrats in unveiling a comprehensive plan for providing the American people with real security. The agenda stands in stark contrast to the dangerous incompetence of the Republican leadership, which has undermined the security of the American people. Given their failed record, it’s no wonder Republicans are losing credibility on a range of issues including security and defense. In fact, according to a recent DNC poll, the Republican rhetoric is not working, as Americans want policies that are both tough and smart and offer real solutions.

The Democratic plan, entitled "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," outlines a bold vision for how Democrats will lead on National Security.

The plan is available for download here, and is also available at the bottom of this page.

That's quite a piece of rhetoric about a “comprehensive plan”, if the subject of the webpage is actually merely an outline. If you know where I can get a more detailed version, let me know.

Originally Posted by Clutch

I see. How are they going to "apply military force overseas" in a way that will eliminate Osama Bin Laden? I don't see any specifics there.

Turn on the news and you will probably see more specifics about the plan than the powers that be intended for you to see.

Originally Posted by Clutch

Of course, obvious specific measures that would pretty plausibly fit in there would be plans to improve intelligence, and to beef up the manpower of the military. Still more specifically, this could be done partly by making the career less off-putting -- by giving them better personal gear, and a GI "bill of rights" to head off the sort of nasty bait-and-switches they've had under the Republicans. Who do you suppose very specifically says that these concrete measures will be taken? The Dems. In the very document you're quoting from. Same page, in fact.

This establishes a plan to increase the ranks of the military. That's a good start. How do they plan to use a beefed up military?

Originally Posted by Clutch

What a fascinating interpretation of an (alleged) Republican vague promise minus any clear implementation, in comparison to multiple relatively specific Democrat plans.

How can you say there is no clear implementation when the details of the actual implementation is reported on a near daily basis?

Originally Posted by Clutch

I suspect they're expecting readers to be aware of the manifest fact, or at least to pick up on the obvious implicature, that invading Iraq doesn't seem to have eliminated a terrorist breeding ground. Perhaps they expect too much, but that's what I imagine they thought. So the utterly natural interpretation is that they will be cleverly adopting non-invasion-and-occupation approaches to the problem. I accept that they do not specify all or any of the obvious tools that one might use to this end, such as targeted aid, skilled diplomacy, trade sanctions, trade rewards, humanitarian interventions, and the like. It seemed pretty clear to me that these and other policies would be at their disposal. Again, this seemed rather more obvious to me than any alleged connection between invading countries in the manner of Iraq and somehow ending up with governments that create happiness. That seemed the particularly egregious "implementation gap".

Right, the Republican plan turned out to be a bad one. The culture in Iraq is not one conducive to democracy, so imposing that system on them was not as beneficial as the Republicans thought. However, and I think you acknowledged it, the Democrats aren't laying their cards on the table. They are stating goals, and leaving us to understand that they will achieve those goals by not doing what the Republicans are doing. Sure, they have a bunch of options at their disposal, but why not spell out which ones they are going to use, and explain clearly how their actions will achieve their goals? A guarantee that they are not going to do what the Republicans are doing isn't enough. I would like some assurance that the Democrats actually do have a better plan, and won't wind up doing something just as dumb as the current administration.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ManM

That's quite a piece of rhetoric about a “comprehensive plan”, if the subject of the webpage is actually merely an outline. If you know where I can get a more detailed version, let me know.

Well, it wouldn't be incredibly baffling if a political party employed some rhetoric.

But what you might do to get "a more detailed version" is to look at what specific Democrats say on specific occasions about specific issues. Some, no doubt, always stick to cautious rhetoric. Others have been advancing specific plans on everything from troops withdrawals to alternatives for dealing with Saddam -- generalizable to how they plan to act in the future on matters of international rogue states. Some even said specific things about how to deal with North Korea. Like, in a big televised debate or something.

But let me guess... that's not a plan! And do Republicans have to play by the same rules, as far as explaining how, exactly, their proposal to invade and overthrow is supposed to issue in happiness and count as a plan? Let's see:

Turn on the news and you will probably see more specifics about the plan than the powers that be intended for you to see.

Ah. No, then.

And is any detail from the Dems sufficient to count as an actual plan?

This establishes a plan to increase the ranks of the military. That's a good start. How do they plan to use a beefed up military?

Apparently not. Looks like the "missing link" fallacy to me. (As in, every time a fossil is found to fill some creationist-alleged missing link, the creationist looks and now sees two more gaps.)

I said, because there was a whiff of it in the air, that it would be unfortunate if this was all just an exercise in floating standards: Dems held to different ones than Republicans, as far as whether they have a real plan. But that's very much what it looks like now.

I would like some assurance that the Democrats actually do have a better plan, and won't wind up doing something just as dumb as the current administration.

Well, quite apart from the positive plans that you gloss or ignore, there is at least this: When you're in a hole, "Stop digging" counts as a good plan all on its own.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

The best plan for healthcare is NO PLAN. Cut off gov't funding of healthcare and medicine. Prices will fall. If local gov't or private charities want to fund medical care, fine. But making the federal gov't pay harms the system.

Because that worked so well in the 19th century. Ah, the good old days, when people worked 80 hours a week, were paid in company scrip, and died by age 50.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by ManM

When I wrote that, I specifically had terrorism in mind. The Democratic plan for combating terrorism is as follows:

Taking the first point, the Republicans have made it clear that they are going to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and destroy terrorist networks by implementing various domestic and international spying programs to locate the terrorist networks, and by applying military force overseas in order to kill terrorists and deny them safe territories. The Democrats and Republicans are on the same page until that part in italics. .

Yes, the Republicans say that's what their plan is, but they have failed to put it in practice. Instead they have embarked on an alternate plan of spreading democracy to countries that aren't involved with al Qaeda.

Also, the real Republicans plan was known to be bad before they implemented it. The State Department and CIA had both concluded that Iraq was not a fertile breeding ground for democracy before the invasion. The White House had already been told that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. The White House was told before the invasion that Iraq did not have uranium or equipment for processing it. Is it really preferable to you to stick with a bad plan, implemented by people who have a track record of ignoring expert advice, than to switch to another plan that isn't detailed enough for you?

As to how they plan to use human intelligence and special forces, I imagine the quote in the OP didn't bother to spell it out because they consider it self-explanatory. Human intelligence is used to gather intelligence about the whereabouts, activities, and plans of enemies. Special forces are used to hunt and destroy targets that are unreachable by air, armor, or artillery. They are also used to operate undetected in countries we don't have permission to be operating in. I'm sorry you need this spelled out because it's pretty well known that those are the activities human intelligence and special forces are used for.

And these plans weren't just pulled out of a politician's ass. These are the exact recommendations of the Strategic Studies Institute, among others. What was pulled out of politicians' asses was the Bush strategy: using unauthorized wiretaps instead of going through FISA; reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions; the doctrine of pre-emptive war; the proposed use of tactical nuclear weapons; declaring war against a tactic instead of a particular organization.

Furthermore, there is a reason to focus on the errors of the Republicans here.
The invasion of Iraq was both the biggest strategic mistake and the grossest waste of American lives since LBJ sent troops to Vietnam. As if that weren't enough, Bush lied to Congress and to the public to pull it off, and intimidated people who contradicted his phony intelligence. That's a pretty monumental misdeed. Supporting the contras was dishonest and strategically foolish; sending troops into Somalia without adequate support was a horrific waste of American lives, but both pale in comparison to the Iraq fiasco. The people responsible for it must be held accountable. They won't, just as Reagan wasn't held accountable for the contra bullshit or Clinton for the Somalia debacle. But they should. I'm sure history will judge Bush as harshly as LBJ and Nixon but I'd rather not wait around. American soldiers are dying for a pack of lies. We all admit Vietnam was a mistake now but that's no comfort to the Americans who died there or the families they left behind.

[ManM]

Originally Posted by Clutch

But what you might do to get "a more detailed version" is to look at what specific Democrats say on specific occasions about specific issues. Some, no doubt, always stick to cautious rhetoric. Others have been advancing specific plans on everything from troops withdrawals to alternatives for dealing with Saddam -- generalizable to how they plan to act in the future on matters of international rogue states. Some even said specific things about how to deal with North Korea. Like, in a big televised debate or something.

Then perhaps the problem is one of PR, because the details of specific plans are not getting out. Hell, what better place to compile those plans than a website declaring that the plan is available for download? If you have been paying attention, I’m not the only one here who has noticed this, and Adam proposed cowardice as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Clutch

Apparently not. Looks like the "missing link" fallacy to me. (As in, every time a fossil is found to fill some creationist-alleged missing link, the creationist looks and now sees two more gaps.)

I said, because there was a whiff of it in the air, that it would be unfortunate if this was all just an exercise in floating standards: Dems held to different ones than Republicans, as far as whether they have a real plan. But that's very much what it looks like now.

My standard for a plan includes goals, actions, and story to explain why the actions will achieve the goals. The Republicans are being hammered for their actions, and so they have been forced into publicly providing that story. However, this has the side effect of demonstrating that the story actually exists. That’s the part that is incomplete from the Democrats, and when I ask for the story to be completed, I get shit about some fabricated “missing link” fallacy. Ironically enough, if you google “missing link fallacy”, you will find that it is attributed to making a statement that is missing a link in the chain of causation. An example of such a statement would be “Increasing the size of the military will protect us from terrorism”.

So, are you done zealously defending the Democrats from constructive criticism?

Originally Posted by Dave

Is it really preferable to you to stick with a bad plan, implemented by people who have a track record of ignoring expert advice, than to switch to another plan that isn't detailed enough for you?

Yes, I find it preferable to go with the known quantity. There is no reason why the other plan needs to be vague.

Originally Posted by Dave

As to how they plan to use human intelligence and special forces, I imagine the quote in the OP didn't bother to spell it out because they consider it self-explanatory. Human intelligence is used to gather intelligence about the whereabouts, activities, and plans of enemies. Special forces are used to hunt and destroy targets that are unreachable by air, armor, or artillery. They are also used to operate undetected in countries we don't have permission to be operating in. I'm sorry you need this spelled out because it's pretty well known that those are the activities human intelligence and special forces are used for.

Then why won’t the Democrats come out and state: “We are going to put spies in foreign countries, and based on the information gathered by them, we will violate the sovereignty of those nations with Special Forces operations.”? HUMINT can be used in many different ways. They could use the intelligence and wait until the terrorists enter countries that our friendly to us, and we could pick them up there. They could limit the activities of the Special Forces to nations that have agreed to let us operate in them. So, what is it going to be? The Republicans have played their cards on the table. I want an equivalent level of information about what the Democrats are proposing. If they were to provide that, we could make a real comparison.

Originally Posted by Dave

Furthermore, there is a reason to focus on the errors of the Republicans here.

I would prefer that people focus on fixing problems rather than assigning blame.