Neo-con headrolling and the dems running for prez

[donsu]

http://www.counterpunch.com/

-snip-

Then Biden gave the neo-cons a lesson in how to pay lip service to internationalism and "our allies": "What we need isn't the death of internationalism or the denial of our stark national interest. What I want to talk about today is a more enlightened nationalism that understands the value of international institutions but supports the use of military force--without apology or hesitation--when we must. An enlightened nationalism that does not allow us to be so blinded by our overwhelming military power that we fail to see the benefit, indeed the need, of working with othersTo begin moving this nation in the right direction I believe we need to embrace a foreign policy of enlightened nationalismFirst, we need to correct the imbalance between projecting power and staying power. America's military is second to none. It must and will remain second to none."

Study the zig-zag rhetoric of Governor Howard Dean and you find the same essential approach, though Dean has just outraged the neo-cons by calling for an "even-handed" US role in any resolving of the Palestinian issue. (A posture he arrived at, please note, after taking heavy fire from the left, including this writer, for being a whore for AIPAC. On Feb. 20, this supposedly antiwar candidate told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." The next day he said he said the UN had to do it. In June, at the Council for Foreign Relations Dean said, "I would add at least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq. It is imperative that we bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other friends to share the burden and the risks." He's made trenchant criticisms of Bush's rationale for the attack and of how it has been conducted, but he still proclaims, "Failure in Iraq is not an option."

With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol
Mosely Brown no Democratic candidate is calling for anything other than that the US to "stay the course" in Iraq, with more money, more troops and if possible the political cover of the UN. Senator Kerry, who favored the US attack last spring, won't commit to supporting the request for $87 billion but adds carefully, "I believe we must do what we need to do" to bring peace to Iraq. Edwards still justifies his support for Bush's war. Don't even ask about Lieberman. A few neo-con heads may roll, but the policy won't change. It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom.
----------------------------

[Jim Sagle]

1. This thread ain't nuthin' but shit and neither is Counterpunch.

Counterpunch is a fake left pub that specializes in slicing up Democrats.

[donsu]

2. did Cockburn say anything that was incorrect?

nt

[Tinoire]

3. Nothing that was incorrect- just offensive for Israeli hard-liners

This is why, all of a sudden, we're hearing here at Democratic Underground that Fair, CounterPunch, antiwar.com, Democracy Now are all biased and unfair. With great interest, have I noted that those posters saying this were either in favor of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and/or some of the biggest pro-Israeli, anti-Justice for the Palestinian, Hawks in this forum.

Thanks for posting this article. It's insightful in many ways and only supports the points the Left has been making for years.

------------------------------------------------

The neo-cons' political hero in those days was US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, much venerated in Israel and the corporate offices of Being for his ardor and constancy in sluicing the US taxpayers' money into their treasuries. The neo-cons' great hope was Scoop for President but he failed to impress the voters in the Democratic primaries in 1976. To the neo-cons' chagrin the new occupant of the Oval Office was Jimmy Carter, whom they construed to be soft on Communism and an Israel-hater. Carter threw plenty of money at the Pentagon and stoked up the cold war, but on a couple of occasions he was downright rude to Menachem Begin so the neo-cons abandoned the Democrats and threw in their lot with Ronald Reagan. For them a hard-line Israel has always been the bottom line.

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn09172003.html (btw, that's the correct link to your article, can you still edit your post?)

[SavageWombat]

4. I respectfully disagree

Counterpunch has been very consistent in their views in the time I've been reading it.

They are VERY far to the left - they've been bashing Clark as a warmonger for the past two days, and they're unabashedly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine - but they are true to their beliefs. And they hate Bush every bit as much as we do.

[Tinoire]

5. They've actually been bashing Clark as a war-mongerer for years

As has Fair and the other Leftist papers, web-sites, and radio stations.

None of what they're saying now is anything new. The only new thing is the sudden demonization of these publications by indignant Clark supporters.

[liberalnurse]

6. Counterpunch means Counter Productive.....

Written by want-a-bee journalist who are probably sitting at home collecting workers compensation for an alleged carpal tunnel syndrome claim...... and bitterness has consumed their souls.