It's a good rhetorical point by Totten, conceded as a rhetorical device. It seems equally clear that not liking the way the CIA and MI6 "connected the dots" in this case is nothing close to a lie, and that presenting it as such is a much more real form of dishonesty.

As for the rest, if the Democrats actually adopted this approach, and people could believe it was done out of broad-based conviction (i.e. was really believed) and backed by plausible plans... yes, the Democratic Party would be an electoral threat again at the Presidential level.

I think you are underestimating Europe's cynical and deliberate uncooperativeness, especially that of France, which has nothing to do with Bush.

A hawkish Democrat in the White House would likely run smack into a major reality-check. But then, Dick Gephardt at least seems to understand this already. He said so to Tim Russert.

Aside from that, I agree completely.

One quick question: how would a nuclear device going off in NYC or DC finish our government and usher in a military dictatorship?

This is from Ralph Peters latest column:

"This column does not mean to idolize the president. Indeed, many of his domestic policies give cause for serious concern, from his slight of hand on environmental issues, through his questionable respect for women's rights, to his ideologically driven, ill-timed tax cuts. But his foreign policy is courageous, effective and vital.

The current flock of interchangeable Democratic presidential aspirants attack the president's strengths, while failing to appreciate his weaknesses. The military equivalent would be a frontal attack across an open field against dug-in machine guns and artillery.

Instead of reciting their litany of imaginary failures overseas, can't a single Democratic presidential hopeful admit that the potential danger to the U.S. from hate-intoxicated terrorists could one day cause an even greater loss of American lives than did our Civil War?"

The answer here is simple. Most Democrats, especially Democrats with money, don't believe war exists. They cannot get their minds around the concept.

Like anyone else in the grip of a fantasy ideology. They would rather kill the messenger of reality (Bush) than change their minds.

Furthermore, very few americans actually believe the Iraq war is justified solely on the existence of WMD. The dems have to be careful not to make their attacks on Bush appear to be attacks on the War itself ... which still seems to have pretty good support, regardless of the WMD "scandal".

Also, it is pretty risky to base your opposition on one piece of empirical evidence because, if something is found, there goes your whole campaign.

Just one direct comment atm (I'm pretty exhausted and really should take a break, actually. Sleep - well, I'm getting to work now, so no sleep; sorry, babbling again), where you wrote:

"Bush has no 'grand plan' that he's shared with us or our allies on how we deal with the real issues of the enemies of America and the West. We do, and here it is'"

The problem with this, which is something oft raised by those who don't like government secrecy, too, is that any strategy that is publically anounced like this is also shared with our enemies.

Lets say the Democrats (or Bush) have a grand plan and it includes "thump the Saudis around the head and chest at the earliest opportunity". Would it be really wise to announce that, to have anounced it from the start (as some wanted to do) in no uncertain terms (the way you propose), and let the Saudis know exactly what is in store for them (the same goes for other examples but I'm reaching for the easy and obvious one because I'm too tired to go for some of the others)? Have the Saudis then react?

Sure, they may suspect (but are given re-assurances "oh, no, we're not out to get you in the end. Really, we're still best of friends. Remember all those times my dad had ya'll over for dinners and chatting and charades? We love you guys! Really. Lov ya babe, lets do lunch") but can't be sure and so they are kept a bit off balance.

This goes right down the line. It does make it a lot harder, perhaps, do draw stark contrasts and sure is frustrating in domestic political debates; but it has its rationales. Remember the saying that "diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while you reach for a stick." That also means you can't say in an asside to your buddy "Hey, watch me really cream the hell out of this dog." Unless you want to get bit.

(Well, I suppose you could tell your buddy that if it was a dog. Some dogs at least. Not so much mine - she'd get you in a heartbeat).

Btw, most of the Democratic Presidentian candidates give pretty clear indications, though, that they don't even percieve the larger context of the war (or that if they do, they are opposed to it), so of course they don't have a strategy for fighting it. That's the real problem with them.

To all-
Please consider this:

(vast oversimplification ahead)

Saddam and Osama are found next week, the Iranian theocracy is overthrown during September and Saudi Arabia finds and truly breaks the financing arm of al-Qaeda.

Lots of assumption here, but the possibilities exist.

Possible result: Far less funding for terrorist organizations

Demand for WMD by terrorist orgs. dries up.

Who can NK sell their bombs to?

Is President Bush pursuing the demand for WMDs side of the equation with the war against Saddam, and the acquisition of a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East? Especially since the supply side problem (at this time) has no options that don't include destruction of Seoul.

(That's why the best of the Democratic candidates keep making insipid distinctions between the "war on terrorism" and the other measures that are "a distraction from homeland security and providing grief councilors to the family members of the victims of the next attack and medical care to the survivors"). The best of them simply haven't got a clue regarding the type of thing you're talking about - they don't even know they're missing a "grand plan" because they don't percieve the situation that such a plan would be for in the first place. As for the worst of them, I've said enough about that lot for now already.

MI-6 says that it has independent information proving Iraqi efforts to buy uranium prior to the Wilson trip to Niger, and prior to the discovery of the forged documents.

If Bush (and Brit intel) are lying about Niger and Iraq and uranium, what was that high level Iraqi trade delegation doing there in '99?

According to the CIA factbook, Niger features:

Religions: Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christians

Exports - commodities: uranium ore 65%, livestock products, cowpeas, onions (1998 est.)

I'm sure they could have been there buying cowpeas...

AL --

You're completely right about what the D's should be saying.

The question is: can they say such things and be believed?

Consider, if you will, John Kerry. Yesterday, Chris Matthews (or was it Tony Snow?) let him talk at length about "intelligence gap", "homeland security gap" and such.

Watching him, he made a pretty good impression; I found myself thinking "yes, good point, this is exactly right". John Kerry was absolutely right in emphasizing these points; there are major problems both with our intelligence and with the DHS, and those problems need attention.

So what is the problem here? John Kerry. Specifically, his own record. He has repeatedly voted to slash intelligence funding, and as I recall, he was holding up the creation of the DHS by fighting for union featherbedding rules.

It is the same thing with most of the other D presidential candidates; they can talk Scoop Jackson all they want, but as long as their records say Jimmy Carter and George McGovern, it seems unlikely voters will be deceived.

So I'm with Trent here; the D's are dead and damned on national security, and will remain so until their words and their voting record aren't opposites.

Michael:

The only thing I disagree with you is your assertion that "Bush has no 'grand plan' on how to deal with the enemies in America or the West" (or were you just asserting that Democrats should assert that?)

Bush has a plan, its the "Bush Doctrine", and it contains the very plausable notion that nation states that support terrorism will be dealt with in the same manner as the terrorists themselves. Bush's problem on national security is that he has been inconsistent in applying his "grand plan" -- by treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves and by his erratic pronouncements in Iran (veering between endorsement of pro-democracy protestors and the status-quo Machiavelianism of Colin Powell). But he HAS a plan, and (I suspect) it is one most voters agree with.

Other than that, great post.

A successful opposition strategy would be to support the "Bush Doctrine" wholeheartedly (even if they tweak it enough to allow themselves to call it the "Libermann doctrine" or whatever), and point out the areas in which Bush's actions have failed to meet with his rhetoric. Said strategy was effective in 1952 (where Eisenhower essentially ratified the "Truman Doctrine" even as he hinted he would do a better job resolving the conflict in Korea).