Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

The problem is that, other than the Will Rogers-esque advice not to have started the Iraq war in the first place, the Democrats’ policy consensus that Drum identifies is basically the same as what the Republicans say, just a little kinder and gentler, i.e., (i) don’t just try to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, announce clearly that we are getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, (ii) don’t just try to build better relationships with the Muslim world, really, really build better relationships with the Muslim world etc.  (Incidentally, on the last point, a recent poll revealed that the explicit sexuality of American popular entertainment and culture is a major complaint of Muslim women; I don’t fancy the Hollywood Democrats plan to do much about that.) So I think Sunstein is right, you should talk about issues where you have something that is both unique and popular to say.

Newsweek quotes an aid saying they *have* to talk about Iraq, but the reasoning is not very explicit:

Now, with a little more then eight weeks to go until Election Day, a senior House GOP aide tells NEWSWEEK that many in the party feel they have “no other choice” but to stand with Bush and embrace the war as the defining issue of the campaign. “It’s all we’ve got,” the aide said.

I think the rub about partisan and foolish hysterical approach to national security is much like beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, I read Rummy’s speech to the American Legion.  Frankly, it looks like a speech that he’s probably given in one form or another many times in the last 5 years.  He doesn’t even seem to be going a knife throwing.  For some reason, the AP must have heard another speech, or at least their idea of beauty is much difference.  Anyway some folks have found it awful and worse.  I can only believe they actually never heard or read it, but just trusted AP.  Big mistake.
You have to be incredibly thin skinned, or are inclined to appeasement, to find much to get angry about in that speech, but yet it is thrown up there as an example of the partisan and foolish hysterical approach to national security.

Likewise, Kevin may have a problem once somebody out there actually starts to listen.

I think that Kevin is mistaken that there’s a Democratic Party consensus on the War.  Check the comments to the linked post.  I don’t see consensus on anything other than that Bush is bad.

Neo, the big problem with rummy’s speech is that it IS the same speech he’s been giving for 5 years. Every one of the assumptions he personally made, and publicly espoused, have proven wrong. The man is a complete and utter failure as a secretary of defense. This “appeasment” attack that I keep hearing is just so much emotionally charged horseshit. Nobody wants to “appease” anybody. We need to get out of Iraq because as long as we’re there, the Iraqi governnment isn’t going to be seen as legitimate by Iraqis. We are fighting a counter-insurgence there that is fast turning into a civil war and nobody in that position has ever “won”. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole too deep to get out of is to stop digging.

I can see iaintbacchus didn’t read the speech either.