Democrats embrace tough military stance

[rodeodance]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /

Democrats embrace tough military stance
Sharpen message on foreign policy

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | August 14, 2005

WASHINGTON -- After months of internal debate and closed-door discussions, Democrats have begun to develop a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses heavily on threats they say are being neglected by the Bush administration, while avoiding taking a contentious stance on Iraq.

Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.

Democrats are also calling for better pay and benefits for soldiers and heightened efforts to protect mass transit and other potential terrorist targets.

The emerging message among Democrats reflects a recognition that winning congressional and presidential elections in the post-Sept. 11 era requires candidates to establish a willingness to use America's military might and keep the nation safe, according to party leaders and strategists.

Despite pressure from liberal groups calling for a quick exit from Iraq, several of the party's White House aspirants and congressional leaders are calling for the United States to intensify efforts to bring stability to the nation before troops come home......

[teknomanzer]

1. Democratic leadership...

still doesnt get it. The more the party aspires to be more like Republicans the fewer votes they can expect to recieve from progressives.

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. We should not lose faith in the entire Democratic party based on this

piece of pro-GOP propaganda being passed off as news. Look closely and you will see that a few names are dropped but there is almost no evidence to back up the sweeping conclusions put forward by this article.

This isn't even strong enough for an opnion piece. It's most certainly NOT facts, news. It's propaganda and even some of US are falling for it.

We need to complain to the Globe.

[AtomicKitten]

69. I think BushCo has neglected the military and veterans.

I think the dems can point that out and correct it without being perceived as pro-war.

'Splain something to me? Remember when Clinton streamlined the military and closed bases in the 1990s and the Republicans bitched and moaned the entire time? Why now that BushCo is orchestrating base closures not a single word is said? Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Nothing Without Hope]

70. In fact, the base closing plan has not proved popular. Congress members

in states that would lose bases have complained and now the independent commission is questioning the projected savings which are cited as the rationale for the change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/politics/14bases.html...
August 14, 2005

Many on Base-Closings Panel Question Estimate of Savings

By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 - A majority of the members of the independent commission assessing the Pentagon's proposed list of domestic base closings say that the Defense Department probably overstated the nearly $50 billion in savings projected over 20 years, perhaps by nearly 50 percent.

In interviews this week, eight of the nine members expressed varying degrees of concern about the accuracy of the Pentagon figures, and said they had directed the commission's staff to conduct a separate savings analysis before the commission's final votes on the military's recommendations later this month.

After scores of base visits and public hearings, most of the commission members interviewed said they now agreed with a report issued this summer by federal investigators that concluded that nearly half of the Pentagon's projected savings came from cuts in military jobs that, in many cases, would simply be reassigned to other installations.

"I fail to see at this point how you could arrive at the figures they arrived at," said Anthony J. Principi, a former secretary of veterans affairs who is the commission chairman. "We're going through this effort to save money from excess capacity to modernize forces. If the savings aren't there, and it costs money to do this on top of all the economic upheaval, why are we doing this?"

(snip)

Whatever the real reason for the prosed massive relocation of bases and troops is, it is NOT the projected savings - which are not based in fact in any case. My best guess is that the Bush cabal is plotting to entrench the military in areas of the country that are more GOP-leaning. There are lots of reasons why the neocons might want to do that, and none of them is reassuring.

[LeftyElvis]

82. Exactly

The DLC needs to be abolished.

[leftchick]

2. just like vietnam

I fear this Iraqnam thing will last just as long.

[bpilgrim]

3. "threats of force" is what got us into these WMD races to begin with

what IDIOTS

peace

[OneBlueSky]

4. morans . . . idiots . . . schlumps . . . what a waste . . . n/t

.

[Larkspur]

5. If Congressional Dem leaders want to bring stability to Iraq before

bringing home the troops, they better sacrifice their kids and themselves, if they are of age, to the military. Maybe we should send our Congressional leaders military enlistment forms with their kids' names on it.

The real reason they want to intensify efforts in Iraq has to do with Iran's growing influence with the Shiites. That Iranian influence is a threat to Israel.

[bemildred]

6. Goddamnit. These are not "The Democrats".

This is the War Party trying to reposition itself after it's latest fuckup.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. exactly

When are we going to realize that the 'War Party' or the PNACers or the 'imperialist faction of the establishment' is gaming us by controlling, or attempting to control, the 'leadership' of both major parties. If we get so pissed off with the republican branch of the war party that even their election fraud machine can't save them, we will get the democratic branch of the war party.

Nader's analysis last fall was correct it was his remedy that was wrong. What we have to do is to make sure that Democratic Party candidates are against this war, the next war (Iran) and against the whole imperialist enterprise.

[bemildred]

15. Yeah, nothing has changed, and Hillary has never been a leftist:

If Hillary Clinton is indeed eyeing the White House, we can expect a lot more of the kind of silliness of the intellect found in Edward Klein's new book, "The Truth About Hillary". Critics pan the book for its sleaziness. I pan it for its striking inability to distinguish among different points on the political spectrum. Clinton, in Klein's world, is a "leftist", not the centrist she and her husband have plainly proven themselves to be. Klein sees her not as simply a liberal, but a "leftist"; in fact, not simply a leftist, but a "radical" leftist. Yes, that's the word he uses. He's speaking about a woman who supported the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s, while her husband was in the Arkansas governor's mansion. The Contras, in case you've forgotten, were the army employed by Ronald Reagan in his all-out war to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the Nicaraguan government. They went around burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were the charming gentlemen Reagan liked to call "freedom fighters".

Roger Morris, in his excellent study of the Clintons, "Partners in Power", recounts Hillary Clinton aiding Contra fund-raising and her lobbying against people or programs hostile to the Contras or to the Reagan-CIA policies in general. "As late as 1987-88," Morris writes, "amid some of the worst of the Iran-Contra revelations, colleagues heard her still opposing church groups and others devoted to social reform in Nicaragua and El Salvador."{10}

Are Clinton's views on Iraq or US imperialism in general any more progressive than this? If she is a radical leftist what would Edward Klein -- who makes no mention at all of the Contras -- call Noam Chomsky? What would he call Fidel Castro? Or Vladimir Lenin? This kind of ideological dumbness just permeates the American media and plays no small part in the voters losing their bearings.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum08132005.html

[Maple]

7. Who asked for MORE aggression??

I think they've been behind 'closed doors' for too long!

Have they seen what's happening in Iraq??

Have they seen what's happening in Crawford??

And they want to invade even MORE countries???

[devinsgram]

8. Get ready everyone

We are in it for the long haul. Man will one day annihilate himself all on the premise of trying to protect himself.

[Donailin]

53. If this were dailykos, I'ge give you a "4"

for your comment. (4 means "excellent")

[creeksneakers2]

9. How are they going to pay for this?

We are spending ridiculous sums on the military as it is. Are they going to raise taxes to pay for a bigger military? How popular will that be? The GOP is willing to spend almost unlimited money to please the military industrial complex. There is no way the Democrats could ever outspend them.

Right now, Bush's popularity is way down because he got us in an unnecessary war. Why would the Democrats want to copy that strategy?

[progressive_realist]

10. Ah, where's that smilie. . .

Here we go:

[Union Thug]

11. Hate to be the one who starts this again, but...

*IF* this is the face of the new Democratic party, I'm tearing up my voter registration card and re-registering as Green (or independent or SOMETHING that better represents my views).

But I'm going to watch and see what happens. There's still a lot of time between now and the next election.

[BillZBubb]

12. We'll never "out tough" the Repugs.

Idiots who want an aggressive and warlike foreign policy are going to vote Repug anyway. Democrats who try to be "tough" alienate their natural base and don't win any votes from the other side. Fools.

This smells like DLC bullshit.

[Adelante]

76. Sounds like Karl Rove bullshit to me

The Democrats have the superior, more successful, most rational, national security and defense policy, record, and history. The Republicans keep getting away with the lie that we don't and we keep losing elections because of it. If the Dems are finally taking ownership, all the better, but this article isn't a news article, it's GOP propoganda. Don't fall for the bait.

[slay]

13. This Democrat will NEVER support this war - EVER!

The Democrats are going to start hemorrhaging voters to the Green Party if this is their attitude. Grrr.

[confludemocrat]

16. Embracing defeat in 2006 and 2008 and paving the way for Iran attack

This will not fly
Public has turned against the war in every dimension: was not justifiable, did not and does not make us safer, prez is dishonest, less than 30% want more troops to go there, etc, etc. and they come up with this brilliant DLC plan that will please no one and leave them neutered and outflanked and showing no courage or leadership.

And then these brilliant minds emerge from behind closed doors to tell us that we will have more of the same: stay the course, finish the mission, bring democracy, pursue a victory strategy.

[ikojo]

17. How is this message any different from that of

the more moderate Republicans?

Why should I use my precious free time to elect a Democrat in 2006 or 2008 when they will govern like a Republican?

[K-W]

18. Those Democrats wouldnt know democracy if it smacked them in the face EOM

[mike_c]

19. this is why the democratic party is doomed, IMO....

And why I vote Green.

[wli]

20. Democrats? DLC more likely n/t

[madfloridian]

21. The Third Way/PPI/ DLC the face of the "old" party.

The ones who helped us lose the White House, the Senate, and the House.

They are the ones who are pushing this agenda so hard.

[IndianaGreen]

22. They are all idiots calling for permanent war!

We don't own the world, and no matter how many millions of American troops die trying to control the world's resources, it is an endeavor doomed to failure, and rightly so!

These so-called Democrats that vote for war and for anti-worker treaties such as NAFTA and CAFTA are as much of a threat to the American people as Bush and his PNAC/Jihadist gang.

Enough of this insanity.

Globalization and capitalism are nothing but barbarism on a global scale. Militarism is their enforcer.

There are other options to permanent war:

Labor in the Era of Globalization

By Scott Marshall

Labor, War and Peace

War and militarization are integral parts of capitalist globalization. For example, the presence of US military force and large military investments in Colombia is not separate from the drive for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). And, of course, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the thrust of military might into the Mideast serve the interests of US based transnational capital – oil in the first place. This reckless use of military power is not wasted on US trading partners and on those who fight against capitalist globalization around the world.

Larger and larger sections of labor are beginning to see the connections between war and capitalist globalization – making the world “safe” for global investment and exploitation. Others in labor are going a step further and demanding that labor adopt an independent foreign policy based on the interests of the working class, not based on the corporate agenda of the US government.

In the end, capitalist globalization, backed up by a single military superpower makes the world a very dangerous place. One big conclusion drawn from this situation has to be that labor and the peace and solidarity movements are the most natural of allies. Making this connection and working to build ties with the peace movement has to be one our most important tasks.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/157... /

[AJH032]

23. Dems will never win if perceived as weak

Sorry, but the Democrats simply will not win in the United States of America if they're perceived by the public as being weak on national security. We must offer a strong national defense strategy and show how the Republicans are misguided in their defense efforts. We need to show how the war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with national defense or the war on terror, and that it has in fact made us less safe from terrorism. We cannot become Republican clones on foreign policy but we CANNOT be weak either. We need to be strong and wise on this issue (recall Clinton's line from the convention: "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values"). We need to show that being strong and anti-war are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing wrong with a strong military as long as it's not used for the wrong things.

[IndianaGreen]

24. How does staying in Iraq make us tough on national security?

Iraq has nothing to do with national security. The 1,800 GIs that died in Iraq may have thought they were protecting their country by serving there, but their service and their deaths has done nothing for our national security, on the contrary, it has had the opposite effect.

Each day our military stays in Iraq is one day closer to the destruction of our military. There is no way we can win anything in Iraq, other than more names on a future Iraq War Memorial.

What you call being tough, I call cowardliness!

[AJH032]

25. did you read what I wrote?

or just the title? You just echoed what I said.

[IndianaGreen]

27. I think we need to re-think this national security nonsense

and return to the principles of the Framers of the Constitution. A large standing army is a threat to our liberties. The Commander-in-Chief clause has been so abused that we must consider repealing it altogether. The war making powers must always reside in the hands of the people, through their elected representatives, and we must ensure that never again shall our nation go to war on a whim or as part of some scheme to enrich Wall Street or prop up friendly dictators.

The National Guard should revert to being the people's militia, not a back up plan for the Pentagon when casualties become too high.

The US should get out of the Middle East, end Plan Colombia, stop interfering in the affairs of democracies that reject the lies of globalism.

[AJH032]

30. if you believe in weak military, it's cool

just realize that nobody with such a stance will get elected in this country, and certainly not at the federal level. Sorry, but Americans want to be kept safe, and they won't vote for candidates or promote a weak military.

[ulysses]

32. I don't believe she ever mentioned supporting

a "weak military".

[Sparkly]

44. AJH did in his/her original post, #23

which IG disagreed with.

AJH's point does relate to article in the OP, and makes sense.

Personally, I think the article is slanted, it making it seem this is something new from Democrats, and only Republicans have ever believed in threatening force, dealing with risks, or paying soldiers.

(In fact, Republicans believe in attacking rather than using threats as leverage, invent "risks" where none exist while ignoring real ones, and treating soldiers and veterans like dirt while giving them lipservice and using them for photo-ops.)

[ulysses]

47. and what?

IG's position is not that of a "weak military" just because AJH posits a question in a certain way.

[Sparkly]

48. Ooookey-dokey.

Just pointing out that the phrase "weak military" was in the post that began this particular discussion.

I guess the phrase "national security nonsense" doesn't exclude support for a strong military to provide, um, national security.

[ulysses]

50. so that I may better respond to you

would you mind telling me who you consider to be in the "ivory tower" of your sig line?

[Sparkly]

51. Has nothing to do with this topic.

Just a thought I had about another matter some time ago, and never changed it.

[ulysses]

54. I'm still curious.

Never mind, if it's a thing.

[IndianaGreen]

33. I believe the Framers were a lot wiser than we give them credit for

I don't believe in empire building or in an imperial presidency, and neither did they.

As to Americans wanting "to be kept safe," I remind you of the prophetic words of Benjamin Franklin:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Sparkly]

45. Doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive.

It's true Americans want to be safe. Doesn't mean we should give up liberties.

[IndianaGreen]

49. But we have given up liberties, by increments, starting with PATRIOT

It now appears that the public has accepted the idea of arresting and holding people indefinitely without ever being charged in court. Once it was acceptable to hold people at the concentration camp in Guantanamo, it was only a matter of time before it becomes acceptable to have concentration camps in Iowa, or death camps in Wyoming.

August 2, 2005

600 Arrests, But Only 76 Charged
Chertoff's Preemptive Crackdown
By MIKE WHITNEY

"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety."

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security

Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff is a busy man. In the last month alone he's arrested more than 600 gang members. There's only one problem. None of them has been charged with a crime.

No matter.

In Chertoff's world that's only a minor glitch; after all, Chertoff engineered the infamous round up of 1,100 Muslims following 9-11; tossing them all in the federal hoosegow and barring them from legal counsel.

It was quite a coup, and probably helped the public feel more secure from the looming threat of domestic terror.

As it happens, not one of Chertoff's detainees was ever convicted of a crime or connected in any way to terrorism. It turns out the whole misadventure was a bigger flop than a Bill Bennett Las Vegas vacation.

A slipshod effort like the post 9-11 sweeps would normally plunk one in the long-gray line at the unemployment office. Instead, it was the boost that Chertoff needed to propel him to the zenith of the national bureaucracy; Homeland Security, the largest agency in the federal government. "Failing upwards" is a long-standing tradition in the Bush White House and Chertoff has become the resident poster child.

His tenure at the agency had been fairly lackluster until the announcement of yesterday's dragnet. Maybe he felt some friendly competition from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who rolled up an astonishing 10,000 criminal suspects' in Operation Falcon just months ago. As the conservative Washington Times noted, (Gonzales) "sweep was a virtual clearinghouse for warrants on drug, gang, gun and sex-offender suspects nationwide." That's how law enforcement is conducted now in Washington; no more meticulous, time-consuming investigations; just bundle the names together with scotch-tape and fire-up the Paddy-wagon.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08022005.html

[Sparkly]

52. I agree.

My point is that's not necessary to national security/defense. (In fact, it's counterproductive.) They're two separate, easily mixed-up things.

[IndianaGreen]

57. If we have no liberties at home, what's the point of sending the troops

half-way around the world to "fight for our freedoms."

Who do we mean when we speak of national security? The American people? The corporations? The wealth of the elites?

The Framers of our Constitution had a very clear idea of what national security meant. They did not want an American king, and they didn't want a dictatorship of the majority. This is why the Constitution was framed in such a way that no one could do whatever they pleased. There were always limits to the power that the three branches of government could do.

[Sparkly]

60. Nobody's disagreeing with you there, IG. n/t

[Donailin]

55. I think American are realizing that it is OUR corporate agression

that requires us to also employ a military agressive posture in the first place.

There's a peace movement, check it out.

[Sparkly]

59. That's been true in many cases, most especially BushCo.

But it's not true in every case, and having a strong military doesn't mean having an "aggressive military posture" or misusing that power. Threats of force do sometimes help foster peace and human rights; outright attacks show a failure in diplomacy, and BushCo doesn't even try.

[Donailin]

63. If I were the next Democratic President

the very first thing I would do is have a state of the planet address: I would APOLOGIZE for every insane move the former president made. I would vow cooperation and humilty in foreign affairs, I would would openly acknowledge that while we are the worlds superpower, we will no longer be superarrogant in our foreign policy. I would then call a summit and in all humility sit at the least worthy seat at the table, because THAT'S what Jesus would do. This is what the world needs NOW. It only takes one humble act to get people to calm down and cooperate, especially when that country was previously on a rampage. It would be such a 180, that it would take peoples breath away so that they could let their guards down as well.

We all need a sigh of relief. Desperately. We do not need the next president to talk tough or act tough or even look tough. We are not desparate for toughness right now, we are desparate for calm.

[Sparkly]

68. "State of the Planet Address" -- that is GREAT!

I wouldn't even say we're the world's superpower anymore. I would stress the need for cooperation, and mutual goals.

By the time BushCo is through, I don't think we will be the world's superpower for long, either economically or militarily.

[bvar22]

58. The Democrats are perceived as "weak" for going along with the Republican

instead of STANDING UP and offering a CLEAR OPPOSITION!

The Democrats WIN Wars.
The Republicans LOSE Wars!

[wyldwolf]

26. As they should

Every American should understand: early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither. We need a 'Success Strategy' — for it is only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home.

[ulysses]

28. what would that "success strategy" be, exactly?

[wyldwolf]

34. Ask Wes Clark. It's his quote

and his plan:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041014220546/http://www.th...

[ulysses]

37. ok

Clark said the United States should bring in more foreign help, reconfigure the military forces serving in Iraq, give Iraqis a stake in the country's success and rebuild partnerships with European allies.

Obviously, these won't be implemented by the current administration, but I don't see them really being followed by any particularly likely Dem administration at this pass either, at least not to any huge extent. Even if they were, I don't at all know that they'd work. We've very much screwed the pooch in Iraq, and "giving Iraqis a stake in the country's success" in any real sense might very well result in a regime for which we don't much care.

I'm warming to Clark to some degree, but he's wrong on Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

39. "I don't see them really being followed by any particularly likely Dem..."

I do, so we'll just disagree there.

[IndianaGreen]

29. " honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women"?

You sound like Alexander Kerensky who said essentially the same thing, refusing to pull out Russia from World War I because to do so would have made the sacrifice of the troops in vain.

The Bolsheviks called for PEACE NOW! The troops responded in kind, and Kerensky ended up as a cab driver in New York City.

[wyldwolf]

35. no, actually, I sound like Wes Clark - that was his quote.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq will not end the war

although to be fair, Clark will not be beating the war drums for an attack on Iran.

How many names do you want on the Iraq War Memorial? I'll say we already have too many names to go on that memorial and that it is time to send every available ship and plane to Iraq to fetch our troops home.

I will quote the words of a young John Kerry who, fresh from his Vietnam experience, told the old men in Congress what millions of Americans already knew:

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTest...

[ulysses]

31. as more and more Americans oppose the war

we're supposed to become more and more hawkish on it?



And we wonder why we lose elections.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Think of Teddy Roosevelt's famous slogan .....

'Speak softly and carry a big stick'

That makes at least as much sense now as it did when first uttered.

American's don't want the War In Iraq© ...... but neither are they ready to disarm and muster down.

We need a strong, effective military .... but not one that is bogged down in Iraq .... or anywhere else, for that matter.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Roemer, Clinton, Bayh, Biden

All our more conservative Dems. Not to mention Will Marshall. Hmmm. The article makes it sound like the Dems are lined up in a row, and yet all the one they quote are the ones we already know have a more conservative stance, contrary to them saying that it was the more liberal Dems.

Odd story.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Will Marshall was one of PNAC's signatories

What we got here is the party stalwarts telling us how we should feel about Iraq. They are as wrong now as they were back in 2002 when they endorsed the Iraq War Resolution.

[election_2004]

41. Where are they going to get the soldiers?

Perhaps some of them are planning to steal that can of InstaTroops that Bush apparently has tucked away in his Oval Office desk drawer.

[xxqqqzme]

42. biden & bayh - the DLC

wing of a democratic party I don't recognize. PPI devotees.

[Pepperbelly]

43. they're missing the boat and blaming the wrong things ...

As usual.

The problem is not of message, the problem is both one of strategy and tactics. We need a complete housecleaning of party hacks and functionaries. They are too lazy to do the job.

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. This article seems to be making very broad statements based on rather

narrow excerpts. Senators Biden, Clinton and Bayh are quoted. I question whether this artilce is really accurate. Claiming "Democrats" - implying MOST Democrats - want a more agressive foreign policy seems like a real stretch from the evidence presented in this article.

I also don'g care for the setup of "the Democrats" as being opposed by "liberal groups" - indicating that "The Democrats," the ones who supposedly want this martial stance, are opposed by a rabble of various "liberals" who are outside a more moderate mainstream.

In short, I reject the conclusions of this article if they are to be drawn from the very slender, narrow evidence presented. More needs to be seen to make such sweeping statements of party policy.

[LittleClarkie]

61. I had that same feeling about a Boston Herald piece

that was quoted by Common Dreams a while back. It's really an opinion piece masquerading as news. The reporter can have his or her opinion, but put the damn thing on the op/ed page where it belongs.

[Sparkly]

62. I agree, and it's looking more & more familiar.

"Democrats suddenly discover military strength is important for Political Reasons."

Democrats have fought, bled, and died in the military, have protested wars, have threatened force in order not to use it, and have been neither ignorant nor unfamiliar nor unsuccessful with all things "military."

Suddenly, this new meme is everywhere that we're going against some tradition in recognizing the importance of an effective military, AND, they're trying to conflate that with support for the BushCo war in Iraq!!!

Two separate things: a strong military, and a stupid misuse of said military.

[Nothing Without Hope]

64. Yes, this looks like a piece of propaganda designed to push the unpopular

Iraq War off the backs fo the GOP - see, everybody wants it! And also to portray the Democrats as a mainstream that's basically like the Rethugs except for being ineffective and a fringe wacko rabble of "liberal groups."

This is not news, it is a pro-GOP propaganda piece. As someone else said, it should be presented as opinion if it is presented at all. In fact, there is so little substance to the arguments, it's not even enough for an opinion piece.

It's pro-GOP propaganda being paraded as news. That's all. We need to write to the GLobe and COMPLAIN!!!

[Sparkly]

67. Agreed, and it goes back a long way...

It's a way to further the three-decade GOP campaign to portray Democrats as "weak" on defense, national security, and all things military -- even when VETERANS were speaking out (John Kerry, George McGovern, Max Cleland, and all of VVAW).

This notion that Democrats have "changed," in order to score political points, furthers that. It says, "Oh, now they're pretending to be strong to get votes." It presumes that we weren't strong before; that strength = stupidity a la BushCo; and that Democrats are agreeing with Bush on Iraq.

It's propaganda all the way around, and it's becoming a theme.

[niallmac]

66. So Dem Leadership wants me to support Cindy while

doing everything I can to be like the guy firing his gun next door?

[Nothing Without Hope]

71. My advice is not to take this article seriously. It is propaganda, not

news. This article is not a basis on which to evaluate what the majority of the Democratic party truly supports. So don't get angry over what the author is claiming the Democrats are saying - in fact, a few names and brief quotes out of context are all the "evidence" that is presented as support for the article's sweeping claims. Rather, consider writing the Globe and complaining about putting a thinly based opinion piece in the news section.

[niallmac]

74. point taken..email sent. n/t

[OKthatsIT]

72. Forget these losers! Are they all war profiteers or what?

We are going down...if we dont wake up an stop this madness.

[Nothing Without Hope]

73. This article is PROPAGANDA - a GOP MEME. Please read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: New GOP Meme: Please, DON'T Fall for THIS One!!!

Ask yourself: if you had seen a TV talking head make the sweeping statements about the Democratic party stance on military force in the world, would you accept it as readily? Or would you be more ready to call BS!!!! and demand better evidence?

This is a new GOP meme, and it's a great way to splinter and discourage Democrats while telling Rethugs and Independents that the Dems and the Rethugs are equally scary and wrongheaded. Now that the Iraq War is so unpopular and people are also scared that the bugnuts in the White House and Pentagon will invade Iraq for nonexistent Nuclear WMDs, these talking points will be more common. We have to recognize them for what they are and call them on it! LTTE time, guys.

[IndianaGreen]

78. If the article is a GOP meme, where are the Democrats calling

for an end to the war in Iraq? Other than the usual group of liberals that have consistently and persistently opposed this war since it was first proposed, where are the other Democrats?

We have Wes Clark and Bill Clinton saying that we mustn't pull out of Iraq because to do so would make the sacrifice of the fallen appear in vain. In a nutshell they are saying: die in Iraq so that it doesn't seem such a waste!

Biden, Hillary, and others are calling for "more boots on the ground." Ironic they use that phrase because when a GI is killed, his/her unit holds a memorial service in which the GI's boots are standing on the ground. When Biden and others say they want "more boots on the ground" that's what we are going to get, more dead GIs.

We need to go back to the drawing board on national security, If you want a military to maintain an empire, even a benign version of Pax Americana, then you condemn the nation to an era of permanent wars in which ultimately the US will be defeated, just as all empires in history were.

If you want a military to protect our shores and be part of a collective security system that does not engage in intervening in other countries' affairs, then you have to change our military to meet those collective challenges.

[GoBlue]

75. DLC embraces its own security first...

which is why they are DINOs.

[CWebster]

77. but the reality is it is bullshit

All those injured and lost lives, all that unaccounted money poured down a black hole that robs the people of this country and destroys the lives of Iraqis..

For what?

So we can demonstrate how tough we are to the world? The world is not impressed, so why are we?

[CWebster]

79. Everything changed after 911

They claim that is why it is necessary, but how come nothing changed after Oklahoma City?

You see, it is a pretext to strut this toughness act - put forth by those with an agenda. Ultimately, is is the formula for another Democratic failure because it offers no alternative to the fundamental FAILURE of a tough military stance and offers no representation for those who aren't buying the "we can do it better" act.

Suggested reading:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

[Q]

86. And let's not forget that Bush's response to a 'low-tech'...

...hijacking and ramming planes into buildings was to use the military to bomb countries that had nothing to do with 9-11. THIS is the strategy the Democrats want to follow?

Fighting terrorism with 'military might' is not only doomed to failure...it kills far too many civilians and allows those who actually committed the crimes to escape.

The alternative the Democrats should offer is to actually GO AFTER TERRORISTS.

[Totally Committed]

80. From tompaine.com e-mail this afternoon:

The Strategic Class
Ari Berman, August 15, 2005

In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the president's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential pro-war candidates who support the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want U.S. troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

The continued high standing of the hawks has been made possible by their enablers in the strategic class—the foreign policy advisers, think-tank specialists and pundits. Their presumed expertise gives the strategic class a unique license to speak for the party on national security issues. This group has always been quietly influential, but since 9/11 it has risen in prominence, egging on and underpinning elected officials, crowding out dissenters within its own ranks and becoming increasingly ideologically monolithic. So far its members remain unchallenged. It's more than a little ironic that the people who got Iraq so wrong continue to tell the Democrats how to get it right.

Entire Article:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050815/the_strategic...

Synopsis:

**** Democratic think tanks have been captured by "liberal hawks" who would rather lean right than do right.

**** The Democratic strategic class is a pyramid:

At the top are politicians like Biden and Clinton, forming the most important and visible public face.

Just below are high-ranking former government officials, like U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin. These are the people who devise and execute foreign policy and frame the substance of the message.

Virtually all the top advisers supported the Iraq War; Holbrooke, who's been dubbed the "closest thing the party has to a Kissinger" by one foreign policy analyst, even tacked to Bush's right, arguing in February 2003 that anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law.

Many of the officials held high-ranking positions in the Kerry campaign. (Holbrooke, frequently mentioned as a potential secretary of state, urged Kerry to keep his vision on Iraq "deliberately vague," the New York Observer reported. Nine days before the election, Holbrooke addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and reiterated Kerry's support for the war and occupation, belittled European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program and endorsed the Israeli separation wall. "Hardly a Dove Among Dems' Brain Trusters," read a headline from the Forward newspaper.)
At the bottom of the pyramid are the liberal hawks in the "punditocracy" -- New Republic editor Peter Beinart, Time writer Joe Klein, and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. (These pundits, along with purely partisan outfits like the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), help to both set the agenda and frame the debate.)

**** Despite the growing evidence that the Bush administration's actions in Iraq have been a colossal—some would say criminal—failure, what's striking is how much of the pyramid remains essentially in place.

Hawks Biden and Clinton still have more influence than antiwar politicians like Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold. No one has replaced Holbrooke or Albright. (Ken) Pollack continues to thrive at Brookings and, despite never visiting the country, has a new book out about Iran.

Shortly after the election, Beinart penned a 5,683-word essay calling on hawkish Democrats to repudiate "softs" like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore; the essay won Beinart--already a fellow at Brookings—a $650,000 book deal and high-profile visibility on the Washington ideas circuit. Subsequently a statement of leading policy apparatchiks on the DLC's PPI publication Blueprint challenged fellow Democrats to make fighting Islamic totalitarianism the central organizing principle of the party. Replace the words "Al Qaeda" with "Soviet Union" and the essay seemed straight out of 1947-48; the militarized post-9/11 climate of fear had reincarnated the cold war Democrat.

A number of leading specialists signed a letter by the neoconservative PNAC, asking Congress to boost the defense budget and increase the size of the military by 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. The "Third Way" group of conservative Senate Democrats recently introduced a similar proposal.

The insularity of Washington, pressures of careerism, fear of appearing soft and the absence of institutional alternatives all contribute to a limiting of the debate. Bill Clinton's misguided political dictum that the public "would rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right" applies equally to the strategic class.

**** Talking tough on Iraq has been a disastrous moral, tactical and political miscalculation for Democrats. (Owing to their distinction, the Democratic strategic class, consisting of the party's leading foreign policy thinkers, could have provided a powerful check on a reckless Administration intent on rushing to war. Instead, it bears partial responsibility for the war's costs: more than 1,800 American fatalities, thousands of maimed and wounded US soldiers, many more dead Iraqi civilians, spiraling worldwide anti-Americanism, surging world oil prices, a new breeding ground for Al Qaeda, multiplying terror attacks abroad and mounting economic insecurity at home.)
A few courageous elected officials are attempting to drum up Congressional support for withdrawal. Thus far, the hawks have drowned them out. Unless and until the strategic class transforms or declines in stature, the Democrats beholden to them will be doomed to repeat their Iraq mistakes.

Noteable Quote:

"Everybody's on the make," says Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, who led the fight against John Bolton from his blog, The Washington Note. "They're all worried about their next government job. People pull their punches or try to craft years in advance what sort of positions they're gonna be up for. The culture of Washington is very risk-averse."

[CWebster]

83. The Democratic party formula for failure

and if it meant a shift in attitude, they applaud the loss - if it means their views win.

[Zhade]

81. "proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs"

These guys are IDIOTS. Don't they remember what happened when the administration threatened the 'axis of evil'?

Why yes, Virginia, two of those countries started seriously working on nuclear technology as a deterrent for invasion.

FUCK the myopic hawks. Fuck them to hell.

[mrgorth]

At the risk of being the devil's advocate

Most of these things were part of Howard Dean's platform. As to Iraq troop levels there is a problem. There is no solution. It was correct to be against going in but now that we're there there is no REAL solution. I want to be clear. Leaving now would have negative consequences and staying is it's own consequence. It's a no win situation. I am not convinced that leaving now is the right answer.

[kwolf68]

84. B -farging -S

So they found a couple moderate Dems. What about the story of the Republicans who are having great misgivings about this war?

And where is the report of the 60+% of the American people who are now stammering in from the dark and now oppose this war?

I guess they figure after the “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the US Military (how Nuremburg?) then the robots (otherwise known as the American voters) will be back bellowing Yee-Haa Shock-N-Yall, Iraq---and—roll with total jingoistic fervor.

[Q]

85. The DLC finally got their way...

...and convinced the party leadership that the only way to 'win' was to join Bush in LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

"The emerging message among Democrats reflects a recognition that winning congressional and presidential elections in the post-Sept. 11 era requires candidates to establish a willingness to use America's military might and keep the nation safe, according to party leaders and strategists."

Party leaders and strategists? This comes straight from the so-called DLC 'think tank' and it's little more than a condensed version of PNAC.

The DLC uses RWing Talking Points to beguile Democrats into believing that supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq shows a 'willingness to use America's military might and keep the nation safe..." This is not only an outright lie...it provides cover for Bush and his cronies.

The blood and death of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are on the hands and heads of the Bush Gang and their DLC buddies.

The Democratic party needs to tell the DLC to go to hell and to take their lying, scheming 'strategy' with them.