Misreading A Question and Answer

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:57:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At Daily Kos, Devil's Tower misreads a question and answer from the last Democratic debate. When pressed by Wolf Blitzer to choose between US national security and human rights, Chris Dodd said:

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe.

Devil's Tower took this to mean that Dodd would compromise the Constitution:

The job of the president is to defend the Constitution. The Constitution first, the Constitution last, the Constitution always. Nowhere is the president given one inch of leeway to consider setting aside that Constitution in exchange for an illusion of security.

Devil's Tower is mistaken. What was being referred to by the question was US posture when human rights in other countries may conflict with US national security interests. Not when the Constitution might conflict with our own security interests. It is ironic that Devil's Tower misinterprets Dodd, who has done more to fight for the restoration of habeas corpus than any other member of Congress. More.

Consider Pakistan. Pakistan is not now a democracy and human rights are violated there every day. Some speculate that Musharraf is becoming a modern version of the Shah for US foreign policy. The argument here is that US security interests are being hurt by NOT supporting human rights in Pakistan. And there could very well be merit to that argument. But the argument assumes that national security interests prevail over concerns for human rights in Pakistan.

Devil's Tower converts this age old realpolitik versus idealistic foreign policy debate (think Samuel Huntington) into something it is not.

Now this could certainly be a reasonable and defensible reason to condemn Dodd. But let's be clear, it has nothing to do with trampling the Constitution. Devil's Tower's interpretation is simply wrong here.

Update [2007-11-19 9:22:17 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to add from this post about George Packer because the simplistic thinking brought to bear by Devil's tower here is extremely reminiscent of the liberal interventionists who supported the Iraq Debacle:

In the end, here is Packer's problem, . . .:
Anyone who spent time in Iraq during those months [after the fall of Baghdad] can't forget the longing of Iraqis for a simple, ordinary life, and their openness to those of us who came from outside. That memory, and the knowledge that, hidden now behind th