« Home | They love us, they really love us! » | Harper wants our input? Yeah, right. » | Accountability: the act of splitting hairs » | Words for Rachel Corrie, with thanks to Billy Brag... » | Let's See Limbaugh Question His Manliness... » | "It's too dangerous for us to go in there alone" » | The more things change... » | Harper and Ambrose have to make up their minds » | A Note on the Nature of Reality » | I, too, am sick of all of the bad news about Iraq.... »

The Democratic "Plan"

Hat tip to Liberal Catnip for finding this.

The Democrats are ready to release their "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World", or "How We Think We Can Still Rule The World With Military Might Alone Even As Our Economic Importance Fades".

This is another example of why the Republicans eat Democrats - it is a document with lots of bluster and little follow-through. Some of it makes sense, but a lot of it is campaign rhetoric that is probably unattainable given the size of the US debt and deficit. I have to wonder if they gave any thought to these as they wrote them down, or did they just accepth them based on whether or not they sounded good to their focus group.

I have summarized the talking points that are going to come out of this and provided a brief blevalysis which might or might not be utterly, disasterously wrong.

21st Century Military
- spend even more money on the military
- make sure the National Guard is "fully manned".

blevalysis - Where on earth will the money come from? I presume the latter means they are pulling out of Iraq, because that's the main reason the National Guard is suffering.

War on Terror
- Get Osama
- spend more money on Special Forces
- make nice with other countries
- set timetable to secure loose nuclear materials
- try to stop weapons development in Iran and North Korea

blevalysis - This is mostly commonsense stuff. Getting Osama is just part of the political patter, like making the document red, white, and blue - he's gone baby, get over it. Making nice with other countries is the real solution to the terrorist problem, and great strides can be made here. Clinton I believe was working on the loose nuclear materials before Bush deep-sixed everything with traces of Monica Lewinski's lipstick, and critical time has been lost, so reviving this should be the first order of business. NK and Iran? The horse is already out of the North Korean barn, so unless they're talking about assassinating Kim Jong-Il, I'm not sure what they intend. Iran is going to be interesting for all kinds of reasons, but who knows what state the relationship will be by the time the Dems get a sniff of power?

Homeland Security
- implement 9/11 Commission recomendations
- screen 100% of cargo coming into US
- prevent outsourcing of ports, airports, mass transit
- more money to emergency workers
- invest in public health infrastructure

blevalysis - This is where the big money is. Examine 100% of the cargo coming into all of the ports? How long would it take? How much will trade be affected? I'm sure the Necropublicans have batted this one around the table a few times and determined that 100% cargo inspection is impossible. More money to emergency workers and health is a no-brainer, but with still more money being promised to the military above and payments coming due on a $9 trillion debt, I've no idea where the jingly is coming from. Preventing the outsourcing of ports and whatnot is like catching Osama - not really going after the issue. Besides, if the US dollar takes a hit, lots of stuff otherwise sacrosanct is going on the market. If the Democrats want to hold onto these facilities for security purposes, take the responsibility for security seriously and put it in the hands of the US government. No way - that's socialism!

- make Iraqi government take more of security load
- make Iraq not fall into civil war
- ask allies to kick in some help
- hold Bush administration accountable for pre-war faux pas

blevalysis - There's a lot of pie-in-the-sky here. Even if Oprah Winfrey became president, I don't think they're going to get anyone to kick troops or money to help them fix their disaster in Iraq. Making the Iraqi government more responsible is a good idea, but to whom are they going to be responsible? What happens if a pro-Iranian Shia government takes power in a national election? Are we still in favour of a united Iraq then? Ultimately, uniting Iraq might not be possible - would a Democratic administration be pragmatic enough to accept this? They might win some hurrahs in the press for empty rhetoric like "holding the administration accountable...", but if they ever got in power what would they really do about Bush's criminal reign? In the end it would amount to nothing more than pissing on the steps of the W presidential library.

Energy Independence
- eliminate oil imports from Mid-East and other unstable parts of world by 2020
- increase production of alternate fuels and promote R&D in alternative technologies.

blevalysis - Good ideas, all. Both the West and the Mid-East have been held hostage by Mid-East oil for long enough. Freeing us from it would remove our fingers from mucking about in places that could use less of us and cutting the profits of the oil sheiks and cartels would make life easier for those that labour under their thumbs.

I think the document also contained a plan to destroy the planet Mars. Given the money NASA spends on sending things there, and given the research going into plans to make a human visit, blowing the damn thing up will save them in the long run.

I think it's a solid plan. Good forsight. And, no less plausible than any of their other big ideas!


Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link