redblueamerica.com

Joel,

There are a few items I want to take issue with in this post. The most minor is your line that "probably" America would not be embroiled in two Middle East wars without 9/11. I sincerely hope you don't mean to suggest that Bush would have attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan, or Iraq and Iran, or Iraq and Syria -- any combination of two oil-rich Middle East baddies -- without us being attacked on 9/11. That is but a few steps away from the "9/11 Truthers" loony bin. And I know you're not crazy.

Now, about that anti-Cleland ad: I'm afraid you've bought into the Democrats' phony outrage on that one. The ad did not feature "the face of Max Cleland ... alongside the face of Osama bin Laden. You can see the ad for yourself here, but I'll elaborate.

The ad opens with a four-picture shot. In the upper left corner is bin Laden. In the lower right corner is Saddam. In the other two are pictures that display America's military might. When the narrator finishes noting that the United States faces dangerous terrorist threats, the screen changes to a black and white photo of Cleland. There is no morphing of bin Laden's face to Cleland's, nor are they "side by side." Then the narrator points out, accurately, that though Cleland says he tough and has "the courage to lead" on terrorism, he voted against a key Homeland Security bill several times -- a bill that was co-sponsored, by the way, by fellow Democrat Zell Miller.

The issue in question is mostly forgotten now, but dealt with how Cleland and most other Democrats were demanding that regular union rules -- which in the federal government creates employees who are virtually impossible to fire -- be applied to the DHS. Bush and Republicans argued, correctly, that the department charged with protecting the United States from terrorism needs more flexibility in hiring and firing than, say, the Department of Agriculture. Cleland's position, if it prevailed, would have prevented that.

Was the ad tough? No question. But it neither drew parallels between Cleland and bin Laden, nor "questioned his patriotism." It questioned his judgement in light of the threats we face. It is fair game to question a senator's votes in a Senate campaign.

Now, you write:

The GOP can, perhaps, claim to be tougher on the issue of terrorism, but it remains a very open question as to whether it is smarter.

Indeed. But the Democrats aren't exactly doing well on this front either -- while carrying the handicap of being seen as less tough. What is the smarter way of the Dems? Travel to Syria, as Nancy Pelosi did, and give the monstrous Assad a propaganda coup? As it is, bin Laden himself was counting on the congressional Democrats to keep their promise for a hasty retreat from Iraq, and is wondering what's taking so long. If he now realizes that in the United States you need a president ready to retreat, he can only be encouraged by the promises of Hillary and Obama. I don't see what is politically or strategically smart about giving bin Laden the kind of propaganda victories he enjoyed from Bill Clinton's retreat from Somalia after Black Hawk Down. Count on GOP-nominee McCain to point that out repeatedly this summer.

As for Rudy: He certainly mentioned 9/11 a lot during the debates. But as Captain Ed pointed out, only a single Rudy television ad featured 9/11. Rudy's failure to catch fire with Republicans had more to do with his liberal social positions -- and maybe concern over his New York scandals (Bernie Kerik, etc) -- and his moronic "Florida Catapult" strategy.

so ... bye bye mr. 9-11 guy.....