Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007

The Tone-Deaf Democrats

By JOE KLEIN

Correction appended: November 28, 2007

In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not explicitly say that. Republicans believe it can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't.

Senator Christopher Dodd had a nice moment in the Democrats' Las Vegas presidential debate. Wolf Blitzer had crashed through Bill Richardson's blowsy, high-minded disquisition on the need to observe human rights in Pakistan, with the question, "What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?" Richardson seemed to gulp: Was I saying that? What do I do now? Uh, can't pull a Hillary. And so, very deer in headlights, he said, "Yes." This gave Blitzer license to ask each candidate the same question. Barack Obama wandered around in it. "The concepts are not contradictory ... they are complementary." True -- but foolishly fuzzy. It was Dodd's turn next, and he said without hesitation, "Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe." He was quickly seconded by Clinton: "I agree with that completely."

But the damage had been done. The next day, I suffered through Rush Limbaugh lambasting the dopey Dems, who actually -- can you believe this, friends? -- put the rights of terrorists above the nation's security! That was ridiculous. All Richardson and Obama were saying was that support for human rights was an essential component of U.S. foreign policy. They are joined in this belief by George W. Bush, whose naive support for democracy in countries that aren't ready for it has destabilized the Middle East. Sadly, that sort of complicating detail isn't very useful in presidential campaigns. If Richardson or, more likely, Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a ready-made "Human Rights for Terrorists" spot.

Dodd and Clinton were right on the merits and astute on the politics. If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they can't be mealymouthed on issues of national security. That doesn't mean they need to be witlessly hawkish. It doesn't mean they have to join the neoconservative frenzy for war with Iran. It means they have to make the arguments against folly with clarity, toughness and a heavy dose of Realpolitik. It means they will have to convince the public that they will be more effective and realistic overseas than the Republicans have been. No more "Freedom Agendas." No more quagmires. A renewed emphasis on cleaning out al-Qaeda, even if it means special operations against the terrorist camps in Pakistan (as Obama has suggested). It also means that in each and every debate, the Dems should acknowledge the progress being made in Iraq and ask the question, So why can't we start bringing home the troops now?

That sort of clarity has been rare in the presidential campaign and almost totally nonexistent among the Democrats in Congress, who are being foolishly partisan on two key issues: continued funding for the war in Iraq and updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Iraq-funding issue is particularly difficult. Senator Carl Levin's proposal for a gradual troop withdrawal, starting now, is the right policy. Various Bush Administration officials -- though none in the White House -- have told me that a troop withdrawal is the best leverage we have for shoving the Iraqis into a national-reconciliation deal. But Levin made troop withdrawal a condition for continued funding of the war, which is a kamikaze mission. The bill couldn't muster the votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, much less the inevitable Bush veto. Indeed, with Iraq calmer for the moment, Democrats probably have fewer votes for ending the war than they did last spring. And their continued indulgence in these futile, symbolic gestures conveys a sense of weakness and incompetence. Whatever political value these votes once had -- getting Republicans on the record in favor of continuing the war -- has long since dissipated and may actually work against the Democrats if the progress in Iraq continues.

The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on how to legalize the surveillance of phone calls and emails of foreign intelligence targets. The basic principle is this: if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications. But to safeguard against civil-liberty abuses, all records of clearly nontargeted Americans who receive emails or phone calls from foreign suspects would be, in effect, erased. Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that -- Limbaugh is salivating -- House Republicans believe would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. (Democrats dispute this interpretation.) In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

As Dodd said, when the President takes the oath of office, he (or she) promises two things: to protect the Constitution and to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Democrats can't find the proper balance between those two, they simply will not win the presidency.