I heard David Gergen repeat it again last night on CNN. "Iraq and foreign policy are McCain's strength" or something like that. This and the myth that the Republicans' strength is national security are repeated over and over as accepted wisdom by the media or in the GOP campaign in the manner of the "Big Lie" technique perfected by certain totalitarian regimes trotted out routinely by the GOP anytime they want to demonize some tinhorn dictator or quasi-dictator. How many U.S. citizens know that Iran's "I'm a dinner jacket" is far from being a dictator? He's more like a cheerleader.
This is the crowd that ignored the serious threats of imminent attacks in the summer of 2001, opposed the 9-11 Commission, and misled us into a war in 2003. How many Americans recall that there were UN inspectors in Iraq just before we invaded and that they were making progress? The fact is that Bush was determined to start a war, regardless of the facts. McClellan's book and the record show that this was a war not only of choice but of Bush's vanity. He wanted to be a "War President". And that is not good foreign policy or prudent national security.
The lessons of Karl Rove's successes should be clear to the Democrats: take your opponent on in what is perceived to be his or her biggest strength, if only to neutralize the issue. The GOP did this to Gore in 2000 by suggesting that he was a liar, when his campaign was mostly about how faithful he was to Tipper and how different he was from BC. They got the press to cover minor mistakes such as when he said he toured flood damage with the FEMA director but it actually had been the deputy director.
Meanwhile, Bush's entire campaign was a lie--"compassionate conservative" and all that. A Texas governor who opposed and vetoed the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights, executed more people than anyone previously, opposed the CHIPS program, etc.
So the openings to McCain are rather obvious: he confused the Shia and Sunni business, just as Bush did not understand what he was getting into and ignored the Iraq Study Group after he got into it. And if McCain was a critic of the war early on, why didn't he point out to Bush that there were UN inspectors in Iraq begging for more time in March of 2003 and if they had been given time, they probably would have reached the same conclusion that David Kay did?
The answer, as shown brilliantly in Vincent Bugliosi's book THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER, is that Bush wanted war against a country that was not a threat and you'd almost have to be crazy to think that it was a threat. And now we are seeing the same kind of thing about Iran. We should be way more worried about Pakistan, an unstable country that has nukes and is harboring Al Quaeda in part thanks to an agreement that Bush approved. What happened to treaties being approved by Congress? How many Americans know about that? And where is the coverage of that?
As for Obama's willingness to negotiate, history has shown that JFK's and RFK's decision to negotiate in October 1962, against a powerful enemy that had vowed to "bury" us made the difference between a likely nuclear disaster and the continuation of containment that eventually led the Soviet Union to self-destruct.
Then there are Bill Clinton's interventions abroad. The GOP mostly opposed him in the '90s. McCain supported him but wanted troops on the ground in the Balkans. Cooler heads prevailed. And why not get Bill Clinton out there on this issue? I bet he'd love to defend his record not only on foreign policy but on terror. Remember, he at least tried to take out OBL. How many Americans know that it was up to Bush to respond to the Al Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole and that Bush did nothing?
So I'd like to see leading Democrats take this on. Where does this idea come from that the Republicans are better at foreign policy?
General Wesley Clark would make an excellent surrogate attack dog on this issue, I think. And I would still like to see him as VP nominee.