Bush & National Defense

Joshua Marshall thinks that Bush can win on national defense and that it is friendlier territory for the president to be campaigning on.

The president cannot win this election on the economy. Barring a rapid change of circumstances over the next three months the data and people's experience of the economy is as best too muddled for the president to run on it successfully.

But he can win on national security. And that's the reason Kerry should engage him on this issue now -- at a moment when the White House seems to be having great difficulty reacting to quickly changing events and shaping the direction of the campaign debate. This is the one issue on which Kerry cannot allow himself to be pigeonholed or adversely defined.

Does this take the debate onto more friendly territory for the president? Perhaps. But the shift will come eventually. And it's difficult to imagine a more propitious moment.

I think there is a disconnect on national defense. There is what we have been told, that President Bush is strong on defense, and then there is what I like to call "reality." While Iraq was sold as a important step to secure the US against "evil," I don't know if anyone will argue that what it really did was distract us from the job of catching bin Laden. You remember him right? He's a terrorist. The War on Terror™ anyone? Why in the world would you give that guy two years and counting to continue to be "out there?" So what if he is on the run. He is out there.

Is going soft on Pakistan, the largest nuclear proliferator we have yet to see, really making the US safer. Well, if you make nuclear weapons for the US I guess it does. All hail the military industrial complex for it is our only savior!

Is going all cowboy on North Korea really helping? I don't care what Madeline Albright says, Kim is off his rocker, a few cans short of a six pack, etc.

You know what? Screw it. Read Atrios' post instead.