Russert, Harwood did not challenge Brody's claim about Dems and terrorism
SUMMARY: On Meet The Press, Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody asserted: "At the end of the day ... this issue [terrorism] helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't." Neither Tim Russert nor his other guest, CNBC's John Harwood, challenged Brody's assertions; in fact, Democrats have offered strategies for fighting both Al Qaeda in Iraq and the main Al Qaeda terrorist organization.
On the September 9 edition of NBC's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert stated that in "[e]very debate ... the Republicans have, they make their point, 'We understand Islamic fascism; we understand the terrorist threat; the Democrats don't.' That is going to be their issue in 2008, just as it was in '04 and in 2000." In response, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) senior national correspondent David Brody asserted: "At the end of the day ... this issue [terrorism] helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't, and I think that will be the key difference as we move ahead." Neither Russert nor his other guest, CNBC chief Washington correspondent and Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer John Harwood, challenged Brody's assertion that the issue of terrorism "helps the Republicans more than the Democrats." Nor did either address Brody's specific claim that Democrats take a "law enforcement" approach to dealing with national security issues.
In fact, Democrats have offered strategies for fighting Al Qaeda. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), as well as former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), have advocated focusing on the regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al Qaeda has been allowed to "regenerate[]," according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). In a July 10 speech, Clinton asserted: "Our efforts must also involve a regional recommitment to success in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurging; they and their al Qaeda allies must not succeed. As President, I will not allow us to fail in Afghanistan. We simply cannot allow al Qaeda to reclaim the country as its safe haven or the Taliban to re-establish its repressive regime." In an August 1 speech, Obama asserted: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Most recently, in a September 7 speech, Edwards asserted: "In Pakistan, the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest tribal areas. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid in the last several years, yet they have done far too little to get control over these areas. As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will."
Congressional Democrats have also offered strategies for dealing specifically with Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Senate recently debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) -- that calls for a "reduction" of U.S forces in Iraq but also stipulates that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops in the region to protect "United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure"; to"[t]rain[], equip[], and provid[e] logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF]"; and to engage in "targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations."
From the September 9 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:
RUSSERT: Every debate, David Brody, the Republicans have, they make their point, "We understand Islamic fascism; we understand the terrorist threat; the Democrats don't." That is going to be their issue in 2008, as it was in '04 and in 2000.
BRODY: There's no doubt about it. I mean, I think it's somewhat of a, on the Republican side, a testosterone convention, in essence, is what it is. Because you have John McCain following him [bin Laden] "to the gates of hell." And you have Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now saying Osama bin Laden is "crazy" and a little "kooky."
They are going to push this all the time. What's interesting though, I think, the bigger issue is on national security. We notice that the Democrats, in all of these poll numbers we see, that they trump the Republicans in many areas. When it comes to national security, it's roughly about even now. Well, of course before it was more with the Republicans. Now it's more even. But still, At the end of the day, the Republicans, this issue helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't, and I think that will be the key difference as we move ahead.
RUSSERT: Can the Democrats say, "Excuse me, Republicans, you had your chance. You decided the Iraq war was the way to go after the war on terror, and that was wrong. We have a different way, a better way"?
[...]
BRODY: And I think what you're going to see is that the Democrats are going to say, "OK, well, wait a minute, Osama bin Laden and that tape, well, he's still out there. Why aren't we in Afghanistan, and we're in Iraq?' And I think you're going to see that argument framed that way.
RUSSERT: Rudy Giuliani, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights, pro-handgun control, pro-stem cell research, and yet he's leading the national polls amongst Republicans because of security?
BRODY: Because of security, also because of his straight-shooter perception or reality or whatever you want to call it. I mean, the bottom line is, is that you at least get a sense of where Giuliani stands on an issue. And with Mitt Romney -- and he's -- and with Mitt Romney, you're not quite sure, at least, you know, back in the past. So, I mean, Giuliani's been able to capitalize on that, and I think that's helped him a lot.
RUSSERT: Larry Craig, the senator from Idaho, had a news conference a week ago Saturday. It seems like an eternity now. And he used these carefully chosen words. Let's listen.
So, who's right?
MMFA and their Democratic candidates who assert that fighting terrorism is, in fact, not a law enforcement issue, or many posters here from the left who maintain, quite often, it is?
Seems to me that no Democrats I can think of ever had a problem with taking the fight to Afghanistan. It's certaintly a law enforcement issue here in our own country. Of course, in my humble opinion, if anyone would rather pursue Osama Bin Laden for arrest and trial instead of killing him and eradicating Al Queada they are defying the reality of who and what we are facing.
Another example of another of Tommys lies.
Certainly Brody wasn't right, which is of course the point of this item in the first place.
So, the Democrats do not take a law enforcement approach in dealing with national security as Brody suggests? Ok, fine.
You first said "fighting terrorism" as opposed to your assertion now of "national security". Which is it?
Either. The thread uses both. If you want to differentiate, fine.
Differentiating is the entire point. It's why Brody is wrong to make the blanket statement that he did.
So "fighting terrorism" is not national security? Or is it? Does it need to be differentiated? You are confusing today.
It's only confusing because you're tied into this concrete black-and-white way of thinking. I don't how many different ways I can phrase the same point. If Obama says that we may need to use the military on one front, that doesn't mean he's opposed to law enforcement methods on other fronts (such as better securing our ports, if you need just one concrete example to help you understand). This is why Brody is wrong to make the generalization that he made. What exactly don't you understand about this?
Ok fine, but the thrust of this piece, and it's presence here, is to say that Brody should have been challenged when he maintained the Democrats have a law enforcement approach to national security/terrorism issues.
And that is followed up by examples from each of the top candidates detailing their military approaches exclusively, I don't see any of their "obvious" law enforcement approaches mentioned here by MMFA.
Perhaps you should instruct them to include what you claim is "obvious".......then all your word parsing and explanations wouldn't be necessary, obviously.
Well that is just ridiculous. I think it goes without saying that all the Democratic candidates as well as the GOP candidates for that matter recognize the importance that the FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, etc play in both national security and fighting terror. They certaintly haven't called for eliminating funding for these agencies. In fact funding has increased due to the needs of fighting terror and national security for these law enforcement agencies.
There's no need for MMFA to provide examples of every aspect of every candidate's position, simply because you're locked into a Manichean mindset. But if you really need to read Obama's own words in order to grasp the concept of multiple strategies, then here you go:
[link to www.barackobama.com] /> "It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office. There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq's leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability."
"There is no need for MMFA to provide examples of every aspect of every candidate's position......."
Well done, only those cherry picked examples necessary to support the agenda dujour here.
You're being completely ridiculous. MMFA provided quotes that proved Brody's blanket statement to be baseless. That's all they needed to do in order to prove their point. This is not "cherry picking."
OK, you made your case......point noted. My apologies.
The thread may use both but obviously you would see the difference. There is much more to national security then just fighting terrorism. A government, in my opinion, would not be protecting it's citizenry if it did not use both measures for national security and fighting terrorism.
Way to start the day off with a logical fallacy. Just because Deomocratic candidates have offered military solutions to fighting al Qaeda does not mean that they <i>"assert that fighting terrorism is, in fact, not a law enforcement issue."</i>
Tommy,
Missing from your accusation of inconsistency is the clear distinction between military action and the analogous use of "police work" in relation to or efforts to combat the threat of terrorism.
It is my view, and I'm sure the view of the "many posters here from the left" that military action against those who have done or conspire to do us harm must be based on sound police work (i.e. intelligence, gathering information, sound analysis, infiltration, trustworthy informants, etc.).
This is clearly stipulated as "actionable intelligence" in the examples given from Edwards and Obama.
I think it's become painfully obvious what can happen if we hastily toss aside sound police work in favor of outdated, questionable or false information.
in relation to *our* efforts...
spell check didn't save me from that one. :-)
Yes, yes, yes. It must be both...why is that so difficult for some to grasp? The Germans just recently foiled a terrorist plot (allegedly), using police work. As far as I know, they didn't use any tanks or jet fighters. They didn't invade any countries.
What we need is a foreign policy that can make a sound judgement as to which is appropriate. Invading Iraq WAS A BAD IDEA. It has not promoted our fight against worldwide terrorism...and may have made the situation worse. Despite what our conservative comrades seem to think, killing EVERY man, woman and child in Iraq would not make us any safer from terrorism.
Here's a news flash...Not all of the world's terrorists are holed up in Iraq! I know that comes as a shock to the Bush apologists. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Yeah, Tommy, fighting terrorism with endless war is going so well, isn't it?
It is a law enforcement issue when it occurs on American soil, however it is a military issue overseas.
So, is Brody's claim correct, or incorrect as MMFA states, that the Democrats take a "law enforcement" approach in dealing with national security issues?
As a blanket statement, it's obviously false. And just because certain candidates have offered military solutions on one front, that doesn't mean that they've ruled out law enforcement strategies on another front.
Can you be specific on which candidates you are referring to, please? And their varying strategies?
Obviously I'm referring to the candidates quoted in the article above. And again, just because Obama suggests a military solution to one problem, that doesn't mean he doesn't advocate a law enforcement solution to another problem. You can't keep pretending to not understand that.
I see Obama's military solution regarding Pakistan, please detail his law enforcement approach as well?
Obviously he views national security issues as a law enforcement problem. I don't understand why this point even has to be made.
Because you keep making the claim regarding Obama in the article referenced here, but he only discusses a military approach to Pakistan, and you keep saying "obviously" he feels that it's also law enforcement.......well, obviously you are not backing up your assertions with facts. But keep saying "Obviously", it sounds good.
Why is it hard for you to seemingly understand that both measures are important to fighting terrorism and national security. Certainly you would agree that the FBI plays an important role in national security and fighting terror. That is a law enforcement agency. Obviously, both military and law enforcement is needed for our safety.
tommy is the one "not backing things up with facts". there is not one democrat who does not also see this as a law enforcement issue. if you have any "facts" otherwise, let's see them.
And p.s. I just noticed that you attempted to reframe the question to specify "national security issues." Nioce try, but Brody didn't say that. He was speaking about the "War on Terror" in the broader global context.
I reframed nothing. Apparently you are responding prior to reading the text of the thread?......check out the last sentence of the first paragraph......specifically "national security"
That's not entirely the case. Overseas terrorism can often be fought by means of law enforcement in cooperation with foreign governments. It's when foreign governments' actions support terrorist activities against the US, either actively or with knowing disregard, that military action becomes an option.
It's incredible that so many people seriously can't see that the military solution to terrorism is like pounding an anthill with a club.
Yes, but we can't send the FBI to root out Al Queda in the mountains of Pakistan nor could we have sent them to Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban and end the terror training camps there. It is certainly not JUST a military solution but the military plays a vital role.
Brody: "this issue [terrorism] helps the Republicans more"
Sure does. That must be why Bush is at 30% approval, and why Republicans losts the House and Senate. Because the public loves their approach to fighting terrorism and how the warning level of course is now "green" and how Osama has been brought to justice. Heckuva job.
They're both wrong...
Terrorists should not be fought with soldiers or with officers of the law.
Terrorists are best fought with "those who don't exist" - you know, the folks who understand that the best way to deal with a terrorist is by application of a stiletto to the base of the brain.
No tanks, no planes, no badges.
Brutality is best fought with brutality.
It's just bizarre how many idiots are out there who think fighting terrorism is a black-and-white, law enforcement vs military concept. I doubt that any of the candidates on either side see it that way, so it's dishonest to attempt to apply such a blanket generalization to either party.
Law enforcement is the most effective method of combating terrorism on a day-to-day basis. Military action should be reserved as an option for exceptional circumstances such as we saw with Afghanistan. There's nothing radical about that position.
I don't know. That's awfully nuanced and too thoughtful. Doesn't fit into the "you're with us or agin' us" slogan.
It does fit the Republican Party's mantra for the last few years. I am fed up with it as a "real" Republican.
Bush's phony support for Republican policies, his divisiveness in action while he claims to be a uniter, and his bloodthirsty actions around the world are a terrible stain on the Republican Party.
Has anyone noticed that North Korea is finally, apparently, being reasonable? We're talking to them now. The thing that Bush refused to do for years has brought us back from the brink. Why did it take him so many years to finally begin those talks? Bush's leadership suck.
His leadership hasn't been all bad.
He's managed to toe the conservative line on deregulation, privatization and union busting. He's done that junk quite well, in fact.
He also pushed through the no child left behind disaster, the not so aptly named clear skies initiative and managed to get two hard righties onto the Supreme Court.
Basically, these failures you point to in your post are the failures of a successful conservative agenda.
Bush is not incompetent, he is not a sucky leader. Bush's failures are the failures of conservatism.
And no. A real Republican is not what our country needs. We've had about 26 years of real Republicans in charge, setting the tone and the terms of the debate through media domination.
Just look at how peachy life is for real Americans because of it.
A real liberal would be great.
Liberalism, the ideals and principles, founded this country and liberalism built the greatest middle class in the history of the world.
Why, oh why is a CBN "pundit" on MTP?
Brody: At the end of the day ... this issue [terrorism] helps the Republicans more than the Democrats because they're going to be able to enforce this idea that the Democrats want to go at this with law enforcement and the Republicans don't.
As I've said before, this war thing is going oh so peachy that law enforcement couldn't possibly do a better job. (?!) Kerry was right all along but the neo-numbskulls can't bring themselves to admit it.
"Christian" Broadcasting, eh? "Why calleth me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"