Brain Fertilizer

McQ does some nice analysis.

Thesis:

Matt Yglesias has issued a bit of a challenge to "rightwing critics of the Democrats" to familiarize themselves with the liberal position on how they intend to fight terrorism before they begin to smear what they don't know.

My take:

There is a huge difference between "policy as stated" and "policy as implemented". And nice-sounding sentences can be implemented a variety of ways, depending on the the intention behind them.

The main points of the Democrat plan are:

1. Take the fight to the terrorists A. Increase the U.S. Special Forces capability by 2,000 personnel over the next several years, greatly enhancing this nation's ability to track down and eliminate international terrorists in all corners of the globe. B. Increase foreign language experts in the U.S. government, thereby ensuring that our troops and security personnel receive timely translations of critical conversations between terrorist organizations. C. Strengthen measures to combat terrorist financing, a critical aspect of the war on terror.

Okay, this is 90% of the Bush Administration strategy (number pulled out of thin air, but you know what I mean). It would be probably 10% of the Democrat strategy. This is an improvement? Also, note point "B". What they are really saying here is "Stop kicking linguists out of the military because they are gay" which is is really a back-door (pun intended) way of saying "allow gays to serve openly in the military". Now, while I actually do support that, I don't like doing it in an underhanded way...and to be honest, most of these people getting kicked out are using the "gay" excuse because they just don't want to serve. If this option were taken away, you'd just see more Obesity discharges or sudden Conscientious Objector realizations. And I'm sure the first place Democrats would look for point "C" would be Halliburton and the sale of SUVs.

2. Dry up the Breeding Grounds that Produce Terrorism. A. Authorize additional funding for basic education programs to help nations provide a clear alternative to the madrassas that preach radical Islam. B. Support to non-governmental organizations working to enhance democracy and development in the Muslim world. C. New public diplomacy programs to explain U.S. policies and counter anti-U.S. propaganda, and a long term strategy to deal with key states; including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

It sounds identical to what President Bush is already doing, isn't it? I mean, if Afghanistan and Iraq weren't breeding grounds producing terrorism, what is? Idaho? Are Democrats going to shift to depopulating/re-educationing Red-State America to prevent another Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing? Oh, and points "A" and "B"? If you squint slightly, they say: Raise taxes to increase spending in line with our idea of resolving "root causes".

3. Increase the U.S. Government's Accountability and Effectiveness to Counter the Terrorist Threat. A. Deal with these problems by establishing a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of U.S. polices and programs on the war on terror. B. Create tough criminal penalties for anyone caught defrauding or profiteering from U.S. foreign assistance programs. C. Create an independent commission to hold accountable all of those responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal.

This would be about 45% of the Democrat program. Specifically, make it a priority to appease terrorists, dictators, and the UN (apology for the redunancy) so that we will have more credibility to take on terror sometime in the far off future. Make friends with France again. And point "C" is looking for a pretext to jail the entire Bush Administration, if possible. Well, except for those who plea-bargain (Powell) to implicate the true Masterminds of Evil (Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. In that order).

4. Prevent Terrorist Acts With Weapons of Mass Destruction A. Expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials by authorizing a global cleanout of radioactive materials. B. Expand the Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond the Former Soviet Union. C. Dramatically increase resources for a range of under-funded, yet vital, State and Defense Department programs. D. Include a number of measures to increase border and port security and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack. It adds 1,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Customs and Border Protection agents over 5 years; authorizes $3 billion over 4 years to ensure that MTSA standards are met and funds other port security measures; and creates or restores a number of programs designed to ensure that this nation's state and local first responders have the training and equipment they need to deal with this threat.

This is the other 45% of the Democrat agenda (leaving 10% of effort/funding for the first two, if you are keeping track). Let's call this "following the Democrat Strategy for the Homeland Security Department" plan, i.e., dramatically increase the number of people who get cushy federal jobs they can't be fired from and so tend to vote Democrat in gratitude. But notice the most detailed point of any given: point "D". What they are saying here is that while they will bloat federal government and commensurately raise your taxes as much as possible, they will only allow the addition of a token handful of border guards that won't do anything to stop all the new Democrat votes coming across the border from Mexico.

Okay, now I understand the Democrat proposal. Now can I smear it?