not so fast...what about "smart on defense" vs. "dumb on defense"
The RNC would like us to believe that people like Michael Castle who blindly support the President are "strong on defense". They say that to be "strong on defense" you must endorse every application of force, no matter how stupid, and no matter how gravely it threatens our national security.
The RNC equates voting to give our idiot President blank check after blank check with strength. Sadly, it is an electoral strategy has worked for a number of consecutive elections and it is clearly a strategy they are going to stick with for this midterm election.
Isn't "strong" vs. "weak" a false choice though? I mean how "strong" is Michael Castle for voting to turn the control of the Delaware National Guard over to George Bush? How "strong" is Castle for voting to invade a country that had no WMD's and was in a threat what-so-ever to the United States?
It seems to me that it would be better for the country if we moved away from this "strong vs. weak" thinking to consider if a policy is "smart on defense" or "dumb on defacing". For example, take Michael castles public statements and compare them to Dennis Spivack on defense and see who is "smart on defense" and who is "dumb on defense".
Beyond his voting record which clearly shows Castle is "dumb on defense" Castle has said, ""We are more secure today than we were two years ago. The Taliban no longer rules Afghanistan." He also said that removing Saddam Hussien from power makes this debacle in Iraq a "success". Maybe that sounds, "sting" to some people, but is it smart?
Let's contrast that with statements from Dennis Spivack. "I am firmly against the war in Iraq. I have been against this war from the beginning Â from the day the first bomb was dropped and up to this very day. I have been suspicious of the PresidentÂs motives for going to war, especially in such a rushed fashion. I believe we hastily became involved in this war without thinking through the consequences. One of the major blunders this administration has made was planning to win the war, but having no plan to win the peace."
"The President failed to understand that 9/11 should have taught us how small the world really is and that nations need to work together to address global issues such as international terrorism, global warming, world hunger, genocide, AIDS, and bird flu."
"This country has spent over $300 billion as of May 2006 (a number which continues to increase everyday) and achieved none of the objectives the President initially articulated. Along the way, the President has(i) poisoned the atmosphere in the Middle East and destroyed any hope of the United States playing a constructive mediation role, (ii) undermined peace efforts (iii) failed to address the pressing needs of working American men and women, (iv) lost the good will of the world, which we had immediately after 9/11, (v) misdirected essential funds that were needed in the real war on terror when we were pursuing Osama bin Laden and disrupting his AQaidada network, (vi) interrupted our rebuilding effort in Afghanistan, which could have served as a model, and (vi) failed to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan."
"I have called for a responsible exit strategy that begins the draw down of our troops in a responsible fashion in an effort to avoid adding to the existing chaos in Iraq and in the region. It may be that it will be impossible to avoid chaos and civil war, but I believe that we can help the Iraqi people and the fledgling Iraqi government to give them an opportunity to govern themselves."
Give me Spivack's "smart" over Castle's "strong" any day.