In his liberal E-Ring blog, on September 5th Kevin Baron tried to portray the Democrats, or at least some Democrats such as Michele Flournoy and Douglas Wilson, Obama’s former apparatchicks in the DOD, as strong on defense and “tough but smart”:
“Wilson is a former executive vice president of the Howard Gilman Foundation, where he ran its domestic and international policy programs at White Oak, a conference center north of Jacksonville, Fla., that hosts policy and leadership retreats. Wilson credited an initiative at White Oak, in cooperation with the National Security Network, which over the course of several years brought “next generation Democrats” together to workshop “all kinds of issues: Asia, Europe, China, Russia — and what you ended up having was a process that really ended up building a team of people. They knew each other before they got into office.”
Other birthing grounds included the Truman Project, founded in 2004, which helps train service members eager to get into foreign policy, and Third Way. founded in 2005. Kahl’s successor at DOD is Matt Spence, a co-founder of the Truman National Security Project.
Others stumping in Charlotte include Rachel Kleinfeld, Truman’s founding president and CEO; Mieke Eoyang, director of Third Way’s National Security Program; Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network.
Together they are at the core of a center-left movement of Democrats unafraid of military power, spreading U.S. global influence, and striving to buck soft-of-defense characterizations that killed liberals in presidential elections for so long. The groups have become messaging machines, joining or zooming past the ranks of Washington think tanks considered influential to defense policymakers.
By now, the Democrats enjoying their advantage in some part, Wilson argued, because they “have boiled it down to ‘tough but smart’.” That’s the slogan for this commander-in-chief they’re offering.
“This is a president who shown he has a spine but he’s not stupid,” Wilson said he tells people, in his speeches. “And there’s a difference between standing up for the country and beating your chest and running off a cliff.”
That’s message has resonated with voters, he argued, because “after 10 years on the battlefield, American voters understand that.””
What utter garbage. It is evidently intended by the author to promote the Democratic party’s failed defense and foreign policies.
The fact is that Obama has been neither tough nor smart; he’s been extremely weak and naive.
He has implemented deep defense cuts, and has scheduled even deeper ones. He threatens to veto any attempt to undo them, unless that attempt involves massive tax hikes. He has signed a dangerous, unequal nuclear arms treaty with Russia which obligates ONLY the US to cut its arsenal, while Russia is allowed to grow its (and is doing that). He now plans to make an even deeper, and this time unilateral, nuclear arsenal cut, down to just 300 warheads. He has cancelled plans to deploy a proven, working missile defense system in Poland, replacing them with a nonexistent “Aegis Ashore” system, in order to appease the Russians. But Moscow opposes ANY US missile defense systems in Europe, even the watered-down systems that Obama plans, so he has promised Russia “flexibility” after the 2012 elections if he’s reelected (God forbid). He has been appeasing China (and has even invited the PRC to attend the 2014 RIMPAC, in violation of US law). He has been appeasing the Iranian mullahs, thus giving them almost 4 years of time to work on nuclear weapons, which they are now close to building. He has appeased Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega.
He’s the softest weakling in US history, even softer than Jimmy Carter.
He’s the biggest appeaser in world history, even a bigger one than Neville Chamberlain.
Those are not exaggerations. Those are facts.
And Obama’s spinmeisters and former DOD apparatchiks can deny this all day, and recite fantasies about how Obama is supposedly “tough but smart, but the fact is that he’s neither, and his foreign policy has been downright disastrous.
As for the Dems whom Baron lauds here, they are just as weak on defense and foreign policy as other Democrats, and neither their and Baron’s spin nor their history of working as Obama’s apparatchiks at the DOD can change that.
They are weak on defense because they advocate deep defense cuts and appeasement towards America’s enemies, and during their time at the DOD, they worked to implement such policies.
They are afraid of US military power, have helped Obama work to dismantle it, and no matter how hard they try to avoid the “soft on defense” charge, it will stick because it’s factually correct. They ARE soft on defense.
Besides Flournoy and Wilson, who have worked for Obama in the DOD, helping weaken the US military, Baron mentions, among others, Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network (NSN). As Daniel Greenfield reports, “The NSN’s goals are to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.” Its founder was part of Obama’s transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. George Soros’s Open Society Institute helped fund the NSN, and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee.”
In other words, Hurlburt works for a George-Soros-funded group. Hurlburt was also a member of a Barney-Frank-convened panel which, in 2010, recommended drastic, $1 trillion defense cuts.
The Truman project is another extremely-leftist organization which supports liberal policies.
So much for the myth of “Democrats unafraid of military power” and trying to “buck the soft-on-defense charge.” They don’t stand up to scrutiny. They are extremely weak on defense, as evidenced by their advocacy of deep defense cuts.
Mr Baron’s entire screed is a laughable farce.