The notion that “politics stops at the water’s edge” hasn’t prevailed for much of U.S. history, but the current level of foreign-policy partisanship is dangerous to national security.
Instead of uniting in the face of mortal danger – the threat of Islamic radicals intent on acquiring nuclear weapons – Republicans, Democrats and their rhetorical allies are busy savaging each other.
When the United Kingdom broke up the plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic Ocean, it should have been a reminder of a common threat we all face.
Instead, Democrats took the opportunity to blast the Bush administration for wasting resources on Iraq while Republicans sought to prove once again that Democrats are weak on terrorism.
In the meantime, the Islamic radical group Hezbollah has won a public relations victory against Israel and a strategic victory over the government of Lebanon – and America’s enemies, Iran and Syria, are cheering.
The fighting in Lebanon diverted world attention from Iran’s nuclear program, which proceeds apace, and served to divide a coalition of Arabs, Europeans and Americans determined to resist the spread of Iranian influence.
It’s probably impossible, on the merits and in an election year, to achieve unity on all the policies necessary to cope with the multi-phased threat facing the West. But it’s a time for sober, serious debate – not name-calling and point-scoring.
But that’s what we’ve got. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean reacted to the London plot by charging that “Osama bin Laden is still running around in northwest Pakistan, evidently able to try to convince people they ought to blow up American airplanes, and we are bogged down spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., observed that “five years after 9/11, Al Qaeda has morphed into a global franchise operation, terror attacks have increased sharply across the world and the president has shut down the program designed to catch bin Laden.”
And former President Bill Clinton accused Republicans of “trying to play politics” with the London arrests and wondered, “How come we’ve got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan? And, why has the administration consistently opposed adequate checks on cargo containers at ports and airports?”
Indeed, Republicans have been playing politics with the terrorism issue, with Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman accusing Democrats of “defeatism.”
Cheney earlier alleged that antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont’s primary election victory over Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., had “encouraged Al Qaeda types.”
Farther down the political food chain, New York GOP Senate contender John Spencer is running an ad pairing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D) picture with one of Osama bin Laden to accuse her of “playing politics with national security.”
This is a tactic Republicans employed in 2002 to defeat incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. Even if there is a case to be made that Democrats are weaker in fighting terrorism than Republicans are – and I think there is – implying a link to terrorists is beyond the limits of decency.
Bush already stands as the most polarizing president in recent history – a point conclusively documented in a recent book, “A Divider, Not a Uniter,” by Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.
