Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hey guys! Look what I found! It makes the DLC look very militaristic!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 09:53 AM
Original message
Hey guys! Look what I found! It makes the DLC look very militaristic!!
Let me first make clear what I am citing. The WSWS, a SOCIALIST website, has today published an article (actually, a transcript of a speech) which quotes material taken from a DLC document. I will paste the relevant passage below.

Let's assume for the moment that the WSWS has accurately quoted the DLC document. The topic I propose for discussion is whether or not you feel comfortable with the philosophy expressed in the document. Do you, for example, think it offers a healthy alternative to the Bush style of militarism? Or are you disappointed to see that there isn't really a perceptible difference?

PS - I have noticed that when WSWS material unflattering to Democrats is posted on DU, it is regularly attacked by ad hominem red-baiting, rather than by refutation of argument. (I'd certainly expect to see some good old-fashioned red-baiting here, for example.) But FWIW, please note that what I'm posting from the WSWS article is mostly just their quoting of the DLC. There's only a modest amount of commentary (and of course quote selection) mixed in - so unless you want to argue that the quotation is inaccurate or the selection unfair, the fact that this comes from WSWS seems not to have much bearing on the subject.

=============================================

The perspective of the DLC

A revealing glimpse into the policies that would be followed by an incoming Kerry administration can be obtained through a reading of a series of documents drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), with which Kerry is affiliated.

Kerry distinguished himself from the majority of his rivals for the Democratic nomination by adopting the DLCs position that the Democratic Party could not win elections by concentrating solely on domestic economic and social issues, but had to attack the Bush administration on the issue of national securityfrom the right.

The main document, entitled Progressive Internationalism: Democratic National Security Strategy, embraces the framework set by the Bush administration of a never-ending war on terrorism. It states: Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again, the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

The document explicitly embraces the Bush administrations doctrine of preemptive war, declaring, Democrats will maintain the worlds most technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world. It goes further, declaring, Instead of relying only on military preemption of the use of WMD, Democrats would focus on preventing the acquisition of WMD.

On the issue of the military budget, the document affirms: We reject the lefts perennial complaint that America spends too much on the military. This is no time to cut the Pentagons budget. This under conditions in which the annual spending on the US war machine is approaching half a trillion dollars, exceeding that of the worlds next 25 largest military powers combined. As the Washington Post pointed out last week, even Republican lawmakers are concluding that the current levels of military spendingwhich exceed those reached during Reagans massive nuclear arms buildup against the Soviet Union in the 1980sare economically unsustainable.

The document elaborates in chilling terms a military strategy for global imperialist intervention in a section entitled, Transform the Military and Use it More Effectively:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that we need to enhance our ability to project power with deadly accuracy over enormous distances.


The document calls for investment in the next generation of precision munitions; unmanned aircraft and long-range bombers; light, mobile and more lethal ground forces, especially special operations; and on a new generation of naval vessels that can bring greater and more accurate firepower to distant theaters of conflict.

In addition to demanding expanded operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the document calls for US to threaten North Korea that if it resumes production of nuclear weapons, the United States would be prepared to use force to protect its interests.

Finally, the document states, Democrats will bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland. We will not let bureaucratic inertia and turf-consciousness prevent us from creating Americas first-ever domestic intelligence organization.....


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/bvan-m18.shtm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. As a Democrat I highly object to those sections
After seeing how much success we're having in Afghanistan and Iraq, are they really serious that they want to expand this chaos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Is this from the DLC PPI document
or ANOTHER one?(Sorry, didn't copy the PPI document the first time around!!)

It REALLY BOTHERS ME THAT:
1) Kerry won't committ to reduce the defense department budget

2) the DLC(and Kerry by inference since he is a card-carrying member) seem to believe that the way to spread democracy around the world is by MILITARY FORCE.

Am I the only one that is irate and upset by this outdated cold-war strategy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I gotta cut Kerry some slack
He's walking a fine line and seemingly so far doing a good job of it (based on the polling numbers, anyway). I have to hope that he too realizes that the military budget is desperately in need of trimming, but knows that saying it would scare away funds, which he needs.

As for your second point I agree completely. I guess I'm getting lots of practice in belief and faith right now. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. No, you're for sure not the only one upset and irate, Carol
I found a quotation that I think reflects on all the people who sneer/ed at DK and his plans for peace and change:

New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, Why then are you not taking part in them? (H. G. Wells)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
131. Wow! I've been waiting for this thread...
This is what I have worried about all along. The DLC has shown themselves to be a very sinister and self-absorbed club. Those two clowns, From and Reed are like characters from a Stephen King novel. Dean came out swinging against them and their corporated-controlled clones in the DNC and look what happened to him!

I'm scared, because Kerry waffles. He wiffles. I think he will escalate the situation in the Middle East. I think the powers that be will have another front man. Flame me, ban me. But show me where Kerry says he'll put the skids on for real and forget the pipeline.

That vote yesterday concerning the resolution that capturing Hussein and assassinating his sons made our country safer raised the hair on my neck. Where's Kerry's take on that vote?

WE ARE NOT SAFER. The exit strategy is escalation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Kerry By Inference?
Post facts- not your faulty "inferences".

Please present Kerry's quotes and policy position papers to back up your "inference"... otherwise you are simply letting your preconcieved ideology dictate your rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
49. More commie lies
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 11:33 AM by sangh0
A revealing glimpse into the policies that would be followed by an incoming Kerry administration can be obtained through a reading of a series of documents drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), with which Kerry is affiliated.

Kerry distinguished himself from the majority of his rivals for the Democratic nomination by adopting the DLCs position that the Democratic Party could not win elections by concentrating solely on domestic economic and social issues, but had to attack the Bush administration on the issue of national securityfrom the right.


For their next act, they will discern Gandhi's true motivations by reading from Mein Kampf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. Thank you for providing the required red-baiting. I knew we could count
on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
64. Thank you for ignoring the issue
of how Kerry can be blamed for something someone else wrote. I knew you'd focus in on the one word and ignore the rest, something you accuse others of doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
105. And once again
RichM shrinks from the issues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. If I didn't know this was from the DLC, I would swear it was PNAC.
By the way, who is that strawberry-blonde smiling woman in your avatar? I'm starting to see this picture a lot around here. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Rachel Corrie
Peace activist killed in Israel last year. There were many threads, but they were all removed to the I/P forum. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
45. who?
Its incredible the lifeforms that crawl though that forum. I tried to post a reply to your first thread but it was locked at the same time. I had so much foulmouthed anger coming out I held off. Then seeing the results of the relocation I just couldnt jump in that mud. God DONT forgive these hate filled bastards and murdering fucks, pretty please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. I sympathize with your frustration and outrage
I truly do. But we have to beg God not only to forgive them, but also to intervene. These people who make pancake jokes about a peace activist desperately need a ray of love and peace to eneter their minds. The hatred conveyed by those jokes is stupifying.

One way to try to end the hostilities is to try and understand and communicate with each other, but it's damn near impossible with some. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #50
65. Im afraid the big G is all too forgiving
which puts me at odds with hardcore fundies. Im not though! :P
this beautiful little girls last words were:
"my back is broken." Is that any way to leave this world?
What is the name of that caterpillar pilot, who clearly knew what he was doing? I want to make sure history is properly documented there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. Don't know the name
The story is too tragic for me... I can't dig too deep because I don't want to despair.

I know that there has been an investigation by the IDF, which international observers were allowed to see only part of. I suppose if you wanted to find out the name of the offender you could do so. I don't want to know, really. Once you start realizing how this is not an isolated incident, and start finding out other ugly truths hidden from America about the conflict over there... it just really becomes overwhelming.

Change is possible though, and it starts with us! And remember, even our last great republican president, President Clinton, did a fantastic job of attempting to foster peace there. I expect no less from Kerry, regardless of his campaign rhetoric. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Rachel Corrie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
78. It IS indeed PNAC!
Will Marshall is the author of this grossly misnamed "Progressive" Policy Institute, and he is also a PNAC signator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #78
128. PNAC Facts and Some Contrasts to the DLC
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 04:12 PM by bigtree
In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDef...

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

You can hear the pitch of former Lockheed executive Bruce Jackson, hawking in favor of his company's space weaponry:
-Control the new International commons' of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service with the mission of space control. (U.S. Space Forces; eventually realized in the form of the Air Force-financed Lockheed Space Battle Lab) http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-03z.html

-Exploit the "revolution" in military space affairs to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.
-Establish a two-stage transformation process which maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies.

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation were creating a dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant' military power."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC assertion that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" sounds a lot like destabilization to me.

Between peaceful nations, parity and balance of our respective forces and weaponry is the maxim in our expressions of our defense and security goals. Any open declaration of the need for military dominance is an invitation to a dangerously competitive, world-wide arms race.

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, "In reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The 2000 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

The PNAC Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/secstrat.htm

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

Peace through strength; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

So their plan is to attack whomever, whenever they feel our security is threatened, no matter if the nature and prevalence of the attack is uncertain. The U.N. should have studied this document before it wasted its time trying to reign President Bush in.

(mods, the above is from my book, Power Of Mischief http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/097473520... ... )
__________________________

A Call to Service, by John Kerry, p. 19-20 Oct 1, 2003

"In contrast to the dangerous mix of isolationism and unilateralism that characterizes the Republicans, I support speaking from a position of strength on international issues-the multilateral cooperative tradition of democratic internationalism forged in the course of two world wars and the cold war. It acknowledges that multilateral organizations are vehicles for the promotion of our ideals and the protection of our interests around the world. And it recognizes that those ideals and interests in this globalized world are consistent with the peace, prosperity, and self-determination of every country on earth.

Democratic internationalists understand that there are times when America must challenge the UN, NATO, and our allies to stand up for their own preferred values. And they also realize that there are times when America must be challenged to live up to its values as well. America has taken a rare step in human history in arguing that its interests and the world's are one."

http://issues2002.org/2004/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.ht...
______________________

John Kerry Signed The DLC Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century:

Last May, at the invitation of the Democratic Leadership Council, elected officials from across the country met at Franklin D. Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. Their goal was to begin drafting a statement of New Democrat principles and a broad national policy agenda for the next decade. This manifesto, The Hyde Park Declaration, is the result of their work.

The Hyde Park Declaration has a historic antecedent. At their 1990 annual meeting, held in New Orleans, DLC members -- chaired by then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas -- issued The New Orleans Declaration. That statement of principles became the guiding philosophy of Clinton's 1992 run for the presidency and later that of his presidential administration. The New Orleans Declaration's call for a citizen-government relationship based on the values of opportunity, responsibility, and community subsequently became the main organizing principle of Third Way political movements in Britain and around the world.

"Because of the work done in New Orleans and the fact that the American people gave us a chance two years later to test it, we have proven that ideas matter, and that for the decade of the '90s our ideas were the right ones," President Clinton told the Hyde Park gathering. "They have put the Democratic Party at the vital center of American life." http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&cont...

"Now, I think we have a rare opportunity to identify and move on the big, long-term challenges the country faces in the new century," he continued. " both the opportunity and the responsibility to put forth a declaration here which will guide our party and should guide our nation for the next 10 years. ... I've done everything I could to turn the ship of state around. Now you've got to make sure that it keeps sailing in the right direction."

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

A New Politics for a New America

At the beginning of a new century and new millennium we see a nation in the midst of a great transformation.

As modernizers of the American progressive political tradition, we call for a new politics for the next decade to reflect new realities.

These new realities include:


An information-, technology-driven, and ever more global New Economy that is changing the way Americans work, live, and communicate with each other.

A population that is rapidly becoming more diverse, more affluent, more educated, more suburban, more "wired," less political, and more centrist.

The emergence of a new social structure, in which the "learning class" of well-educated and skilled citizens prospers while those without education and skills are at risk of being left behind.

The aging of the population, creating new intergenerational tensions over resources for schools, retirement, and health care.

A generational change in attitudes as the New Deal/World War II generation gives way to the baby boom and GenX generations that are far more skeptical about politics and government, even as they crave a "higher politics" of moral purpose.

A rapidly changing global environment in which American values and interests are predominant, but in which we face a new series of international challenges based not on a monolithic threat from another superpower, but on regional instability, economic rivalries, ethnic conflicts, rogue states, and terrorism.
Where We Stand

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America's basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.

We believe in free enterprise to stimulate economic innovation and growth and in public activism to ensure that everyone can share in America's prosperity.

We believe that government's proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.

We believe in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.

We believe that global markets demand global rules and institutions to ensure fair competition and to provide checks and balances on private power.

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

We believe that education must be America's great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.

We believe that all Americans must have access to health insurance in a system that balances governmental and individual responsibility.

We believe in preventing crime and punishing criminals and that America's criminal justice system should be rooted in and responsive to the communities it serves.

We believe in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.

We believe that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.

We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.

We believe in replacing top-down bureaucracy with more flexible public institutions that enable citizens and communities to solve their own problems.

We believe government should harness the forces of choice and competition to achieve public goals.

We believe in enhancing the role that civic entrepreneurs, voluntary groups, and religious institutions play in tackling America's social ills.

We believe in strengthening environmental protection by giving communities the flexibility to tackle new challenges that cannot be solved with top-down mandates.

believe government must combat discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation; defend civil liberties; and stay out of our private lives.
We believe that the common civic ideals Americans share transcend group differences and forge unity from diversity.

We believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

We believe in progressive internationalism -- the bold exercise of U.S. leadership to foster peace, prosperity, and democracy.

We believe that the United States must maintain a strong, technologically superior defense to protect our interests and values.

Finally, we believe that American citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights, and we mean to ask our citizens to give something back to their communities and their country.

A New Agenda for the New Decade

Based on the new realities of American life and on our enduring values as progressives, we present the following agenda for America's next decade:

Read:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&cont...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Entire Posting Is Guilt By Association
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 10:07 AM by cryingshame
Assuming that Kerry will adopt DLC positions, as outlined in this ONE paper.

Then assumes this means Kerry will attack on National Security from the Right?

1. Document does NOT embrace Bush's never-ending war on terrorism.

Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again, the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

Terrorism most certainly IS a fact of life we must face and deal with. Do you know anyone who has a magic wand to make itdisappear?

2.Document does NOT embrace Bush's doctrine of preemptive war.

Democrats will maintain the worlds most technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world. It goes further, declaring, Instead of relying only on military preemption of the use of WMD, Democrats would focus on preventing the acquisition of WMD.

Where does document say we will invade soverign nations who do not pose an imminent threat? That is Bush's Doctrine. That is not stated here.

3.The document elaborates in chilling terms a military strategy for global imperialist intervention in a section entitled, Transform the Military and Use it More Effectively:

Gee, I guess America shouldn't have an effective military.

4. North Korea is going to need skilled diplomacy. Kerry most certainly gets this point.

5. Finally, the document states, Democrats will bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland. We will not let bureaucratic inertia and turf-consciousness prevent us from creating Americas first-ever domestic intelligence organization.

You don't think we need to upgrade our borders etc.? Read Hart/Rudman report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Some problems with your points #1 & 2 -
On #1 - the document explicitly concedes that the struggle will last decades. How is this NOT embracing a never-ending war? In my book, struggles that last decades are never-ending wars.

On #2 - The phrase is Instead of relying only on military preemption of the use of WMD, Democrats would focus on preventing the acquisition of WMD. How is this NOT embracing preemptive war? It plainly has no objection to military preemption; it merely adds that by itself, preemption is NOT ENOUGH. This is an example of criticizing Bush FROM THE RIGHT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Never Ending Doesn't Equate With Decades
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 10:23 AM by cryingshame
Never Ending means WITHOUT END.

Preemptive War is attacking someone who is NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT.

Bombing targets (example, nuclear processing plant) is not an INVASION of a soverign nation.

Hopefully one may be forgiven for assuming Kerry would use diplomacy and THREAT of force to prevent proliferation of WMD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
29. But there's a big problem with stopping proliferation...
... while at the same time refusing to reduce your OWN stockpiles of WMD.

WMD's are like a Pandora's box, and the lid has been ripped off. So, naturally, countries are going to do what they can to GET them. ESPECIALLY when they look at the difference between how the US has dealt with North Korea as opposed to Iraq.

When you consider such an aggressive military posture as either the current one OR the one advocated by the DLC, it is little wonder why nations would seek to gain WMD's -- if it is the only thing close to a guarantor AGAINST being invaded should the US, exercising its self-proclaimed right to American exceptionalism, decide that a country is somehow posing a threat to "their interests".

Of course, it would seem then that the thing that would make most sense would be to engage in an extreme reduction in WMD's. To be quite honest, the whole idea of "nonproliferation" in the current context just reeks of colonial racism. The countries that HAVE nukes are largely the prior colonial powers. Those who are trying to GET them are those who were previously colonized. For the former colonizers to say that it's OK to keep their nukes because they're somehow more "advanced" (they don't say it, but the implication is clear) while calling for the formerly colonized to be denied them just reeks of hypocrisy, IMHO.

If we truly want to reduce WMD's around the world, we need to start with the country that has more WMD's than any other -- the United States of America. You know, leading by example, and all that other crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. Does Seem Hypocritical For Us To Have Them
and then dictate who can or can't....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #40
51. This whole discussions seems a bit hypocritical to me
seeing as how no one is responding to the criticism that Kerry is being held responsible for the DLC's opinions, and not his own.

Even if that plan *IS* advocating "never-ending war", it has nothing to do with what Kerry has proposed, so what's the point of debating what it means when it has nothing to do with Kerry's positions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. sangh0, please see my disassociation from Kerry in this thread
Don't make the assumption that just because a few people attempted to associate Kerry with this outlook 100%, that EVERYONE on the thread has done so.

And then don't attempt to shut down discussion because of your false assumptions on the above. This is an important topic, and discussing it in frank, honest terms will not harm anyone -- least of all you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I didn't say you were associated
What I said is that the absence of any discussion concerning the faulty logic used (not to mention the deceptive subject line) taints the thread.

And I'm not surprised to see the utterly predictable whine about how I want to "shut down discussion". All I did was post. I thought that was allowed. It seems like you would like to shut someone up. You won't find anything from me that stops anyone from saying what they want so can the hyperbole. You're too big to be scared of boogeymen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Well, seeing as how you leveled the finger of "hypocrisy"...
... at a subthread discussion in which two posters, both of whom had explicitly stated that they were NOT associating Kerry with the comments of the DLC, and was actually specifically about the hypocrisy in international WMD nonproliferation issues -- I fail to see what other conclusion you expected me to arrive at.

Our subthread discussion had a certain context. Your post in response could easily be interpreted as an attempt to twist the reference to "hypocrisy" into a leveling of charge against those involved for being hypocritical in even discussing it.

Please spare me your sanctimonious lectures about whining and bogeymen. I haven't the time nor intellectual energy to waste on them. You are most certainly free to post whatever you want, just as I am free to respond in any manner I see fit. I am also free to become annoyed when I am attempting to engage in a meaningful debate and experience an intrusion that seems only interested in turning the discussion on to a more superficial ground.

Likewise, I am free to apologize if the person whom I felt annoyance with is able to convince me that that was not their actual aim, and that their post was not really directed as a reply to ours even if it was placed as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. Yes, it is hypocritical
to imagine your engaged in a responsible and reasonable discussion while ignoring the fallacy this thread is being used to spread.

SO respond however you see fit. But if you want to accuse me of censorship, you're gonna have to do better than just whine about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. It's like saying, in the middle of a war
"Why should we worry about all those bombs? We're just having a discussion on wine"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. I thought we agreed to stop sniping at each other.
Apparently, I was mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. Here's what you said
"But don't come in here waving a wand of self-righteousness in assigning to me statements I never made"

and then we agreed to stop assigning statements to each other if we hadn't ever made them. I didn't realize you meant we could never criticize or disagree with each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Like I said above...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. Bombing targets is not an INVASION
So if I throw a Molotov cocktail through your front window, that's okay? I'm not invading your space or anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. In fairness
It doesn't specify that preventing the acquisition of WMD's will be achieved through military force. To me it seems to be saying that the reason for the prevention of struggling nations acquiring WMD's is to avoid a pre-emptive strike once there is a threat that they will use the WMD's they've acquired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. I thought the FBI was our first-ever domestic intelligence organization?
I found that a very odd statement. I want the word "Homeland" taken out (sounds like Hitler's view of Germany) and I don't want another domestic spying agency. This is redundant. There are ways to create a "special branch" of the FBI working with CIA on domestic terrorist activities. This "Dept. of Homeland Security" is nothing but a PNAC type way to spy on and control Americans and create another level of beaurocracy that the average citizen doesn't have a way of controlling.

The other points are ones which could be refined but they are really not different from what the Repugs policy is. The only difference is that the emphasis is on "International Cooperation," before using "force."
But, how do we trust that that would be true anymore than we could trust the Chimp when he campaigned on saying America should be in the business of "Nation Building" and then he turns around and leaves foreign policy up to PNAC.

Where do we get the money to do all this, anyway? Building new "sleek" ships? They cost alot of money. I suppose China would do it cheaply or maybe GB. We've closed most of our Naval Shipyards and they've been converted to other uses, so this would be very, very expensive if we wanted to do this here. There just isn't any money for all this. And that the Chimp used up equipment by invading Iraq that will have to be replaced is his and the Repugs fault. Why should our tax dollars go for this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. we need an awareness campaign
I'm not surprised. As a matter of fact, I recently read where military spending while Clinton was in office soared. And Clinton promised he'd bring it down. This may have been in reference to one particular aspect of military spending--I'm having trouble recalling--but I read it here a couple days ago.

We have an entire culture oriented to big military spending. There seems to be no comprehension whatsoever on the part of the American people that the military budget is so grotesquely overendowed. Last I checked we were at something like $550 billion and the nearest runner up was China at $46 billion.

We need an awareness campaign, first of all. It is sick beyond belief that we let 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance but that we spend such huge amounts on brute military force (which, btw, are being shown to be an ineffective way of dealing with terrorism, as redqueen points out above.


Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. There Was ONE Democratic Candidate
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 10:18 AM by cryingshame
who spoke of cutting military budget, how GOP likes weapons systems not people, how its easier to engage in foreign policy when you're building schools not dropping bombs, proposed creating a new Department of Foreign Assistance to make Peace happen....... and who also had the credentials and background to actually address the problem.

That was General Wesley Clark.


Oh Well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. No, there still IS one...DK.
He and Clark were/are very close on many issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. I was about to say!
What is Dennis? Chopped liver? Guy can't get no respect... I tell ya...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
37. The site I found - Re: military budget
shows where Reagan got military spending (as a % of GDP) up to over 6%, and under Clinton it was down to 3%. It is est. to be 4% in 2004.

(It is still double of all of Europe put together.)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. I don't like the DLC
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 11:17 AM by bloom
This is why people need to keep voting for Kuncinch in the primaries... get the message out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
38. Massages for Peace
That sounds like a great idea! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. As a Democrat I highly approve of this
This sounds to me that the DLC is recommending a solution to terrorism with a purpose. The current Iraq and Afghan situations are for fun and profit for the military industrial complex. The DLC is proposing to actually do something about terrorism.

The DLC is just as much members of the Democratic Party as those on the left. This sounds to me like a plan with a purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Wow- terror fighting= military preparedness now?
I don't get it. ;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. Your approval is inviting further decline, to be honest
May I suggest that you read the following article on Political Scientist Chalmers Johnson:

THE DISQUIETED AMERICAN
By Jim Benning, San Diego City Beat
March 15, 2004

Author Chalmers Johnson was asleep in his San Diego-area home on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the telephone rattled him awake.

Metropolitan Books publicist Tracy Locke was on the line from her Manhattan office two miles from Ground Zero. The previous year, she had promoted Johnson's book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, which warned that U.S. policies abroad were creating the potential for retaliatory attacks. "Blowback" is the term the CIA uses to describe the unintended consequences of covert actions.

The book had generated only modest interest when it was published, but with the events of the morning, Locke knew that was about to change. Before rushing home, she spoke into the telephone in a voice flattened with shock, telling the author, "Turn on your television. The World Trade Center has just been hit. The worst kind of blowback has happened."

Johnson was stunned. He hadn't exactly predicted the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the book, but he had come close. "World politics in the twenty-first century," he wrote, "will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world."


Highlight in bold is from me. The rest of the article can be read by clicking on the link through the title.

Please make careful note of Johnson's statement on the source of "blowback". Then take note of the attempts to equate the "War on Terrorism" with the Cold War made by the DLC.

Also, when reading the article, make note of the fact that Johnson was a person highly supportive of the Cold War while it was going on -- until he became suspect of its true objectives in the failure of the United States to abandon a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. This isn't Kerry campaign material. It should be in Foreign Affairs forum.
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 10:22 AM by blm
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. I agree
The way I see it, we're now in the GE. I still support Kucinich and will until the convention, but I think it's time we all began supporting Kerry as much as possible.

If he had said these things himeslf, I'd feel it'd be fair to put up for criticism in this forum, but the guilt by association I think should stop since he is now the nominee.

Just my .02, of course. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
30. I agree that it isn't, nor did he explicitly endorse it...
... yet it IS something that needs to be discussed and debated -- outside of the context of automatically assigning it to Kerry.

In the context of a general outlook, however, I find it to be absolutely repulsive -- which I laid out in some detail in posts below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
76. Does Kerry openly embrace the PPI agenda or not?
It was my understanding that he did. And that agenda comes straight from Will Marshall who is a card carrying PNAC'er. The only difference between PNAC and PPI is the shiny new wrapper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Kerry comes down on the progressive side. Marshall is just ONE advisor
who leans right. Fortunately Kerry has always been one of this nation's most progressive foreign policy leaders, so he doesn't need to RELY on the thoughts and plans of others, while giving them their opportunity to be heard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #80
102. I don't care if Marshall writes 1%, 10% or 100% of Kerry's policies
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 01:57 PM by AntiCoup2k
Even 1/100,000,000th of Kerry's policy is written by this treasonous fascist bastard, then I want no part of him, and he will be no goddamn different from Bush if he cannot recognize the vile evil of these criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. HAHAHAH...Yet you REWARDED Dean for his advisors who were FURTHER right
and MORE influential on an inexperienced Dean.

Sanctimony and hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #106
129. Show me one name of a Dean adviser on the PNAC list
...and I'll personally write a letter to Howard, asking him to repudiate the fucking bastard. But I doubt you'll find one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. It's not all just PNAC,
but, Steve Grossman and Toby Moffett aren't exactly lefties.

Dean, himself, was for every war of the last thirty years including the Biden-Lugar version of IWR, and even promised Ariel Sharon to give him 4x the defense dollars that Bush had budgeted. That's some progressive dove....NOT.

Sanctimony and hypocrisy abounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
16. Words fail me
Not surprising in the least, but disgusting all the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Yes, that's my reaction, too. In fact the very first sentence from the
article after the section I posted is: "Where does one begin with such a statement?"

============

PS - Here are some quotes from William Blum that I ran across the other day:

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."

"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship." (from Rogue State)

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
89. Excellent quotes
I'm working through Killing Hope, which is the encyclopedic CIA/U.S. Military interventions from 1945-1995. Extremely educational and anger-inducing, for real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
21. Rich, let's put this into perspective...
First off, what we are talking about here isn't really all that new, and it's pretty damned predictable. What the DLC really represents is the center to center-right on the overall political spectrum. They only seem to the outside observer that they would be center or even center-left simply because any views that are actually "left" are completely marginalized, while those that are far-right are actually given legitimacy and sold as being center-right to right.

Realizing this means going back to Chomsky and Herman's work in "Manufacturing Consent".

Powerful sources may also use their prestige and importance to the media as a lever to deny critics access to the media: the Defense Department, for example, refused to participate in National Public Radio discussions of defense issues if experts from the Center for Defense Information were on the program; Elliott Abrams refused to appear on a program on human rights in Central America at the Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard University, unless the former ambassador, Robert White, was excluded as a participant; Claire Sterling refused to participate in television-network shows on the Bulgarian Connection where her critics would appear. In the last two of these cases, the authorities and brand-name experts were successful in monopolizing access by coercive threats.

Perhaps more important, powerful sources regularly take advantage of media routines and dependency to "manage" the media, to manipulate them into following a special agenda and framework (as we will show in detail in the chapters that follow). Part of this management process consists of inundating the media with stories, which serve sometimes to foist a particular line and frame on the media (e.g., Nicaragua as illicitly supplying arms to the Salvadoran rebels), and at other times to help chase unwanted stories off the front page or out of the media altogether (the alleged delivery of MIGs to Nicaragua during the week of the I984 Nicaraguan election). This strategy can be traced back at least as far as the Committee on Public Information, established to coordinate propaganda during World War I, which "discovered in I9I7-I8 that one of the best means of controlling news was flooding news channels with 'facts,' or what amounted to official information."

The relation between power and sourcing extends beyond official and corporate provision of day-to-day news to shaping the supply of "experts." The dominance of official sources is weakened by the existence of highly respectable unofficial sources that give dissident views with great authority. This problem is alleviated by "co-opting the experts"-i.e., putting them on the payroll as consultants, funding their research, and organizing think tanks that will hire them directly and help disseminate their messages. In this way bias may be structured, and the supply of experts may be skewed in the direction desired by the government and "the market." As Henry Kissinger has pointed out, in this "age of the expert," the "constituency" of the expert is "those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions; elaborating and defining its consensus at a high level has, after all, made him an expert." It is therefore appropriate that this restructuring has taken place to allow the commonly held opinions (meaning those that are functional for elite interests) to continue to prevail.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Con...

What the DLC is representing here is nothing less than consensus opinion among elites. The debate among elites vis a vis US Foreign Policy has never been about neoimperialism vs. global cooperation, but rather has been limited to varying shades of neoimperialism. This could be summed up adequately by the former Sec. of State in the Clinton administration, Madeline Albright, who famously quipped, "We will act multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must." Couple this with her statement regarding US use of military force to protect US interests: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future." You begin to see a pattern emerging, one that differs from the current neoconservative agenda not in stark measures, but rather in degrees.

In fact, it could be argued that the strategy of the Clinton administration was simply a much smarter one for pursuing neoimperialistic aims because it realized its own limitations and sought to act within them. Both visions triumphed the myth of American exceptionalism. The main difference is that the current neoconservative cabal was so blinded by their own hubris that they failed to realize their limitations if such limitations conflicted with raw ideology.

What the DLC view fails to realize, however, is that we can never go back to this kind of softer unilateralism -- simply because the curtain has been ripped off of it by the raw arrogance of the neoconservatives. I would liken it to a crime racket in which a group of people have a good thing going, making easy money without stirring up trouble. Then, a few of these people begin to get greedy, and feel that they have to go for the big score all the time. Due to this overreaching, the authorities become alerted to what they are doing. The members of their group who didn't want to get too greedy would like to go back to the way things were before, but they can't, because the authorities have seen what their racket really is -- simply lessening it in degree won't absolve them of their guilt.

I am particularly alarmed by the likening of the current situation to the Cold War. Chalmers Johnson, the political scientist who wrote the book Blowback prior to 9/11 predicting an adverse reaction to US foreign policy during the Cold War, was once a full supporter of the Cold War. In its aftermath, however, he began to wonder if the real goal of the US during the Cold War was to counter the Soviet menace, or if it was instead to develop a worldwide empire. I think that the attempts of the DLC to draw this comparison simply help to confirm Johnson's conclusions.

But, if we are to put credence into Johnson's analysis, it should also be noted that he says that nobody "won" the Cold War -- we simply have been able to stave off "losing" it longer than the Soviets did. All the DLC proposals listed in this article would do is hasten that inevitable decline, not that that is a good thing for any of us, but it probably is for the rest of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. I like your 'crime racket' analogy. // I also read "Sorrows of Empire"
recently & saw Johnson speaking last month. I was very aware, both in the book & at his lecture, that he was someone who had signed on to the basic assumptions of the Cold War. He seemed a somewhat Kevin-Phillips-like figure to me -- no leftist, but someone with great integrity - easily enough, for example, to start questioning old and once-dearly-held assumptions in the light of new information.

I agree with this (your sentence) entirely: "The debate among elites vis a vis US Foreign Policy has never been about neoimperialism vs. global cooperation, but rather has been limited to varying shades of neoimperialism." That is exactly the point I hoped to reach, by posting the DLC excerpt. The problem is, global cooperation is completely off the table for discussion, because it's outside the range of elite opinion. We can either have more thuggish neoimperialism (R), or more refined neoimperialism (D) - but neoimperialism, one way or another, we must have.

This leads directly to the "no real difference between the 2 parties" debate, because the range between Democrats and Republicans does exist; there are some points of difference. Yet, the range is a very narrow one, where solutions that could represent real progress for most of the world's people are simply eliminated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. But since you're familiar with Johnson, you also must realize...
... that the main question is not whether or not the US will win the "War on Terrorism" -- but rather, just how long it will take for the US to actually lose the Cold War.

We have discussed in some detail previously how the death warrant for the United States as a "superpower" was signed when Truman adopted Cold Warriorism as national policy, because it simply could not be sustained in concert with a vibrant domestic society. The two forces would naturally be at odds, and it would only be a matter of time before one overtook the other. Since elites are more interested in the former, the eventual conclusion was preordained.

Now, taking such an analysis into consideration, the decline of the American Empire becomes not a question of "if", but simply of "when". And as a sub-question to that "when", we must wonder whether the decline will happen with a bang, or a whimper.

Like I said in another post, it is clear that this decline will NOT be incredibly comfortable for those of us living in the US. But it IS most likely in the better interest of the rest of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. My money is on the 'bang,' not the 'whimper.'
I'm just posting this terrific Johnson quote for those who might see it & decide to take a look at the book. (ie., it's not meant as a response to your comment, IC.)

"Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens."

Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. Yeah, sadly mine is as well...
It's funny that we're discussing such depressing futures right now, because this past weekend as I was driving with my wife to visit her parents for Sunday dinner, I started talking about cohousing and my desire for us to eventually get involved in a cohousing community.

My wife doesn't necessarily like it, because she thinks too many other people will "know our business" -- like that doesn't go on in ANY living arrangement. I told her that my main concern was because things were not going to continue the way they are, that we WILL have an energy crisis, that we WILL have a food crisis, and so on -- it's just a matter of when. I told her I was interested in cohousing because the people who will make it through such calamities will be those who have already established the community networks, alternative energy networks and the like that will allow them to pool resources and cooperate through it.

My wife, of course, thinks I'm a complete pessimist for seeing things in this way. But I can't help it, when everything I read tells me that it's not just probable -- it's inevitable. Whether or not I see in in my lifetime is immaterial, because it will occur soon after I'm gone if I don't see it.

Your excerpt from Johnson's book just made me feel as if I'm not such a crankpot for thinking this way. And it makes me wish I could get my wife to realize the same....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #53
61. Johnson himself, the night I saw him speak, ended his talk with some
gallows humor. He mentioned the 4 chilling predictions from the previous quote (bankruptcy, endless war, propaganda, loss of democracy), & commented on the odds of avoiding each of them. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist was that the odds were nil, and some of the predictions, like bankruptcy, are already set in stone. He deliberately adopted a "cheery" tone in making these terrifying remarks. This was an effective dramatic device; the whole audience just sat there like they'd been slugged in the stomach. Everyone sort of enjoyed feeling sick together - in community, as it were.

Then he took questions from the audience, & this led to a discussion of whether or not it's a good idea to buy land in British Columbia as a possible refuge. He also said that his own feeling of helplessness is a central motivation for his writing. That is - the writing makes him feel less helpless; if he didn't do it, the feeling would be suffocating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. You know, Rich -- I just can't help but laugh reading this...
The think I immediately thought of is that Johnson is kind of like Noam Chomsky, but completely devoid of all hope for a positive future.

Like Chomsky's some kind of ray of sunshine in his own right! :silly:

BTW -- what were the results of the discussion on buying land in BC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #63
83. Johnson seems to prefer BC. Someone in the audience preferred the
south of France. This mini-discussion was accompanied by widespread nervous tittering. I took that to mean that everyone realized how comic a statement of futility it was, to have come to the conclusion that a major social collapse is inevitable - then to follow this up with a discussion of real estate investment. I mean - there's almost nothing else to do BUT laugh.

About Chomsky's being a ray of sunshine - I think of 2 things. One was a comment by Robert McChesney in his foreword to Chomsky's "Profit over People." He talks about how common a reaction it is, when reading Chomsky, to get depressed by the relentless bleakness of the view. (I don't get that reaction, myself.) // The other thing is Chomsky's habit of ending several hundred pages of relentless criticism, with a little "up-beat" passage. For example, the last paragraph of Necessary Illusions is:

Human beings are the only species with a history. Whether they also have a future is not so obvious. The answer will lie in the prospects for popular movements, with firm roots among all sectors of the population, dedicated to values that are suppressed or driven to the margins within the existing social and political order: community, solidarity, concern for a fragile environment that will have to sustain future generations, creative work under voluntary control, independent thought, and true democratic participation in varied aspects of life.

Of course, he's talking about whether humans have a future, and he's not saying 'Yes.' Nonetheless, the passage sort of ends on a high note. Relatively speaking, anyhow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #83
91. Hey Rich, that's exactly what I was talking about!
Chomsky's works are pages upon pages of dreary documentation that just gets you so upset and down at the state of the world -- but followed with the obligatory conclusion of somehow remaining upbeat in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Johnson's work seems to be much the same, just lacking the rosy outlook on the future. It's basically, "Things are totally fucked right now, and they're only going to get worse."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
79. Just want to thank you
for mentioning cohousing. I've often thought this kind of arrangement would benefit people, but didn't know there was any organized effort behind promoting it. :)

So: thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
84. "we must wonder whether the decline will happen with a bang or whimper"
I submit that it's been happening awhile now--a gradual slide to the edge of The Pit (on the lip of which we now teeter) to be followed by a sudden fall. Exactly when the fall will occur--'05, '07, whatever--is a little flexible, but by the same token a little irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because our rulers have arranged matters such that they're not going to participate in the fall. They're in the endstages of forming a new stateless state. And, like the privileged White people who fled to the suburbs in the '50s, they're going to leave the rest of us imprisoned in the decaying hulk while they live their lives in trans-national luxury, protected by the sort of paramilitary police forces we've seen fictionalised in Robocop and BTTF2, and in all-too-true reality in Seattle, Milan, NYC, DC, and Miami. Like those earlier suburbanites, our new transnational ones can feed on the national carcase without having to actually live amid us Neo-N*gg*rs (and we're all going to be Neo-N*gg*rs, extra melanin optional for awhile).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Great posts you two
May I please just say that this is exactly the reason to start laying the groundwork NOW for peace. The generations coming of age now have to be given a different option, the path of peace, if we're ever to rid ourselves of the primitive, violent, 'lizard-brain' reaction to fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. OK, since you've brought it up...
The generations coming of age now have to be given a different option, the path of peace, if we're ever to rid ourselves of the primitive, violent, 'lizard-brain' reaction to fear.

The problem is, when fear takes hold in any way, that IS the reaction we tend to make. It's borne out of hundreds of thousands of years of biological conditioning, and breaking it is NOT easy.

Until the last couple of millenia (a VERY short time in the grand scheme of things), humans responded to threats in the same manner as animals -- by doing whatever it took to escape the immediate danger. As such, we did not ever view things in terms of "foresight" -- the only concern was immediacy.

Of course, there have been shifts in this regard, with the rise of agrarian societies about 9,000 years ago and the like -- but by and large, we are STILL ruled by that "lizard-brain" you speak of.

It is encouraging when you consider that there are even people who DO want to look beyond the immediate and instead consider things in the long-term, because it is evidence that we have begun to overcome our instinctive reactions borne out of millenia of biological conditioning passed down from generation to generation. However, we need to accelerate the process, because I don't think we have enough time left to allow such a change to continue at such a slow pace.

How do we do this? I wish I knew. Overcoming hundreds of millenia of conditioning in a scant blink of an eye isn't easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #44
55. The opposite of easy, actually
It's going to be damn hard. Many have told us throughout this struggle that it's impossible, and that we should just give up.

Evolution has been stalled by those that would manipulate others using fear. Instead of being encouraged to cooperate and work together, we're encouraged to compete with each other and resent each other. Overcoming that kind of mindset is beyond challenging.

But it can be done, and it has to. The alternative is simply unconscionable. And I think, seeing the mainstream acceptance of Dennis' message of peace just recently (note by mainstream I don't mean accepted by the masses... I mean not just teenagers but people from all walks of life), we should all be a little encouraged that we have this wave building behind the quest for peace.

We just have to keep it strong, keep it going. As you said, accelerate the process.

It's up to us, really. And the whole world is watching. And waiting. Some desperately hoping... *sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #55
93. Experimental support for the cooperative model envisioned by DK
(I've mentioned this research before. This article comes from a March '98 issue of Science News)

In new social situations, most individuals try to cooperate and share, according to this view. Those who don't had better beware: Cooperators dispense harsh punishments to people perceived as cheats, liars, or freeloaders. Shared beliefs about what makes for a fair division of some commodity orchestrate decisions about who gets how much of the stuff. Populationwide precepts of fairness apply both to meting out the spoils of hunting in foraging bands and to allocating U.S. tax dollars for welfare benefits. (emphasis added)

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1200/n13_v153/2048126...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Well wasn't that the origin of the Socialist Party???
Wasn't their whole premise based on that idea that it was the laborer doing all the work and the industrialist making all the money off the labor of others? Debs and his ilk never advocated people getting a free ride -- they believed, rather, that those who do the WORK should reap the benefit from it.

Of course, if you want a counter view on this, read Zinn's accounts of early settlers in A People's History of the United States. The early gentry who arrived over here would actually rather STARVE than do any kind of work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Socialism itself, certainly. I don't know about the party as such.
it was the laborer doing all the work and the industrialist making all the money

Indeed! And that article, at the end, briefly reports some research that I found very interesting (did you see it?): people in groups learn to make large or small demands of other groups based on history. So both our rulers and we 'learn our place'; we cooperate in our own oppression. But it only takes someone perceptive and forthright like Gandhi-ji to overturn the system; it's really very fragile. So we can do it, if only we will. We're kept in thrall by hardly anything more than our own classist expectations. Which explains a lot, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. It was a very interesting article
When I was speaking of the Socialist Party, I was referring to the SP of the late 19th and early 20th century that was "led" by Eugene V. Debs.

Have you heard of the book Social Power and Political Freedom by Gene Sharp? You would probably find it interesting, because it highlights how fragile the constructs of power really are within a society -- that in order to topple power all that is really required is for people to withdraw their cooperation. It doesn't matter whether that power resides in a dictatorship or a democracy -- the principle is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #100
127. This reminds me of the thread about a Welfare State
The description of how the people of Denmark ensured their agenda was met was an inspiration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. I thought that was great too! I wish I'd bookmarked it.
You didn't happen to have bookmarked it, did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
24. Yet, we're vilified
If we say as current policy stands, we find little difference between Dems and Repubs.

No wonder the "great unwashed", who don't spend hours tearing apart documents and debating all the fine points, see no difference, and aren't inspired to vote.

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
27. Damn purist
butbutbut we hafta beat Bush!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. You shoulda put those little sarcasm marks around your comments!!
When Kerry wins, what will CHANGE?

A kindler, gentler militaristic imperialism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Plenty WILL change... just not foreign policy to a large degree
However, improvements in other areas -- environment, education, women's rights, social safety net -- should not be thrown out along with what will probably be a "softer unilateralist" foreign policy.

However, we should not pretend that such a foreign policy outlook should be entirely unexpected. Please see my post #21 for a broader analysis.

What can we do to change it? I really don't know. I wish I did, and I'm open to workable suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
47. How do we change militaristic foreign policy?
My suggestion would be by teaching and working for peace. Right now peace activists are being targeted for observation. Why? I would wager it's because TPTB know a threat when they see one. If enough people join in the cause of peace, the MIC goes belly-up.

Same thing is done to environmental activists.

There seems to me to be no other way than grassroots outreach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. Yeah, I guess I was looking for a "quicker" way...
But you confirmed my assumptions that there isn't one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Short of Jesus himself descending
and telling these fools that love your neighbor means DON'T KILL THEM, I can't think of one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
98. "What can we do to change it? I'm open to workable suggestions"
Well, my first suggestion is that we stop --100% stop!-- euphemising the situation. "Softer unilateralist foreign policy" means continuing to kill people during imperialist adventurism, but telling them it's for their own good. We need to call it 'imperialism' and 'war crimes' and 'killing people' and not let up on them even an inch.

No justice? No peace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. Mairead, I didn't think my reference was legitimizing it
It's an attempt to show it for what it is, while at the same time drawing the distinction of difference in degree from the current approach -- which would definitely be "hard" unilateralism.

If you wish, we could call it "soft imperialism" vs. "hard imperialism", or how about "neoimperialism" vs. "imperialism".

BTW, I took the term I initially used -- "soft unilateralism" -- from a recent article in The Nation about this very subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Sorry! I didn't intend to take you to task particularly, IC
I expect I was hooked by the image conjured by 'soft imperialism'--you know, handing the survivors candy bars and k-rations, no mentioning that they are survivors, or that the photo was as contrived as anything showing the Wehrmacht being handed flowers by schoolgirls in pinnies.

My point about not euphemising things stands, though--and that includes not letting the bleeding Nation euphemise things, either! :( Nobody wants to see the real cost either because they're making a profit off of not seeing it or because they get a depression thinking about the magnitude of the problem. But we must keep straight about it. The rulers count on things vanishing down the memory hole, summer grasses growing over the warriors' dreams, and new chidren, ardent for some desperate glory, falling for that same damned old lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Don't look to me
I've never been one to cheer that this is the best we can challenge Bush with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. CWeb -
Can you check your PM's, in about a minute?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
34. The voters don't want a candidate who will cut the military
I can only think of one candidate for President who supported cutting the military's budget, and the voters have rejected him by a wide margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. HAhahaha
:silly: Very deep analysis. I'm speechless. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. Typical. In the OP RichM complains about people not addressing the issues
raised by the article, and here he is, not addressing the issue another poster raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. Typical. Rather than respond to any of the broader points raised
... absent any reference to any particular political candidate, sangh0 instead uses the opportunity to engage in nitpicking.

In case you failed to notice, the overwhelming majority of posters here were managing to discuss this issue of militarism outside of a reference to any particular candidate -- despite whatever guilt-by-association tactics were attempted by the authors of the referenced article.

But no, some of us would rather focus on earning "points" than actually deigning to discuss the underlying issue.

If you're truly interested in debate, don't just give your criticism without your point of view. Offer it up along with why you feel the other person is being disingenuous.

Otherwise, you're simply engaging in exactly the same activity that you are accusing your opponent of. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #59
109. In case you failed to notice
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 02:37 PM by sangh0
this is the forum to discuss the primaries. RichM created a thread in this forum to slam Kerry, and then tried to cover up his intentions by not mentioning Kerry in the subject line. Instead of addressing the real issue of this thread, you have chosen to engage a philosophical GD-type discussion, and complan if anything interrupts. Sort of like having tea at ToraBora and shouting "Hey, you guys! Stop that shooting, we're trying to have a conversation here"

But by talking about the primaries in a forum about the primaries, it's me who is avoiding the issue. Classic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Typical
way to address the issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Let's just say I have better things to do...
... than engage in a pointless pissing match with you.

I stated above that I didn't think that this could be attributed to Kerry's views 100%. However, since Rich did NOT address Kerry in the subject line, and I am not a mind reader (unlike you, I assume), I did not believe that it necessarily was all about KERRY and instead was about a POV advanced by the DLC. If it WAS supposed to be a veiled attack on Kerry, I think I stated earlier in this thread that I didn't agree with such a viewpoint.

Additionally, there are LOTS of things that get posted in GD2K4 that don't directly deal with the election. I see a thread that looks to me like it might be interesting, I click on it, and possibly post my thoughts.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ, sangha -- if I'm offending you so much for daring to discuss such subjects as militarism and its broader effects on society and international relations, I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for it. And if my audacity to defy the guidelines you want to set for me gets your knickers all twisted in a knot, I know it won't affect my ability to sleep at night.

IOW, bugger off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. 'I didn't think that this could be attributed to Kerry's views 100%"
And now that you've made that clear, you can return to your tea party without being concerned about the war around you.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ, sangha -- if I'm offending you so much for daring to discuss such subjects as militarism and its broader effects on society and international relations, I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for it

Well, Jesus yourself if you're offended by my pointing out how you're missing the main point of this thread in order to maintain your entertainment with a clear conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #109
118. As far as this being a post to slam Kerry,
if the foo shits, wear it!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. Utterly predictable.
So, you're saying that you agree with the DLC's proposition -- not solely out of consideration of the fickle and non-forward thinking US electorate, but rather in the broader context of what is good for America and the world in the long term? Or do you disagree?

Or is this all you have to offer on the matter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #43
57. Utterly predictable
to attempt to analyze the situation by ignoring the political realities that present obstacles to achieving one's goals. Utterly predictable to immediately respond to the posting of a fact (or do you think that most Americans want a candidate who will cut military spending) by assuming the poster has a certain position on the matter (ie "So, you're saying that you agree with the DLC's proposition") in order to discredit them for posting a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #57
62. If you would bother to post the entire response...
... you would be forced to admit that it was framed in terms of a question to ascertain exactly what the previous poster's point of view was -- albeit one that was presented in a rather smarmy manner.

At no point did I refute the assertion by the poster that the public would not support, at this time, a reduction in the military budget. I am well aware of that reality. Rather, my inquiry was meant to dig a little deeper and figure out if the poster, as an individual, agreed with the sentiment.

If you want to criticize me for being snippy or condescending in the above post, by all means do so -- because in retrospect I realize I was. But don't come in here waving a wand of self-righteousness in assigning to me statements I never made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. "Or is this all you have to offer on the matter?"
No, not smarmy at all.

But don't come in here waving a wand of self-righteousness in assigning to me statements I never made

A deal, you stop, and I will too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. OK, done.
:grr:

BTW, I fully admit that it was smarmy, and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. blah blah blah
blah blah, blah blah blah.
just trying to translate for those who cant make sense of your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #43
119. I agree with the DLC's proposition
We didn't win the cold war by having a weak military. We won't win the war on terrorism with a weak military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. Freddie, have you ever heard of Chalmers Johnson?
If not, you'd do yourself a service to read a bit about him, and possibly some of the things he's wrote.

You can start with the following article:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18119

See, Johnson is a respected (and hardly liberal) political scientist who fully supported the Cold War -- and then began to actively question it in its aftermath as it became clear that the United States was not going to relinquish its Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world. This led him to ask if deterring the Soviets really was even the primary goal of the United States in the Cold War -- or if it was really instead going about the business of setting up some kind of world empire.

If you look at the facts, even prior to 9/11, Johnson's hypothesis has some merit. We had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in well over 100 countries on earth. We STILL spent more on our military than the next 25 nations of the world COMBINED -- even though we faced no active military threat from another nation.

Furthermore, your response is advancing a false dichotomy. What we are not suggesting is a "weak" military. But don't you think that spending more on our military than the next 25 nations of the world COMBINED is just a bit much? I mean, couldn't we still have an adequate force for national defense and cooperative operations with 25% of what we expend now? Or is that force really for something OTHER than what we have been led to believe it is for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #34
46. can I interest you in a $500 toilet seat?
what a leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
120. There is also people who abuse welfare benefits
Does that justify cutting welfare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. ask Bill
and thanks for a shining moment in the history of ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. OMG, that is just too rich!
It's one of those instances in which you have to do a double-take, just to convince yourself that it REALLY happened.

Like taking candy from a baby, that was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
67. In all seriousness, Freddie -- I'd appreciate a response
I don't disagree with your assessment of the American electorate. However, do you PERSONALLY agree with the DLC's take on this issue? Do you see any major downsides to it? Are their other approaches you might be willing to consider?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #67
122. I agree with the DLC's position on this
Now is certainly not the time to be cutting the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. Please see my post #124 above. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
82. Question for Rich M since you like to concommitantly argue Kerry's
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 12:35 PM by nothingshocksmeanymo
record with this piece of propaganda. How do you reconcile Kerry's votes on CUTTING military spending over the years and the vote AGAINST the 87 billion dollar package with this statement:
On the issue of the military budget, the document affirms: We reject the lefts perennial complaint that America spends too much on the military. This is no time to cut the Pentagons budget.

There must be some form of convoluted logic a Kerry hater employs to reconcile these opposing facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Here's how I reconcile it. Kerry has been in the Senate a long time, & has
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 01:14 PM by RichM
voted on MANY measures authorizing military spending. He voted against SOME of these measures, and for others. I don't have a tabulation in front of me, & don't claim to know the exact percentages of how often he voted FOR, & how often, AGAINST.

Your remark refers to "Kerry's votes on CUTTING military spending over the years." You don't prove here that he usually or even often voted against military spending. You are simply claiming that he voted against SOME of the measures - which I don't dispute.

To settle the question honestly, it would be necessary to review his whole record, and to see how often he voted for; & how often, against. (Neither of us has done this, to this point.) I know a lot about Kerry, and he has no reputation whatever for being particularly dovish (yes, I know he opposed Gulf War I). He has no reputation for boldly & consistently opposing Pentagon spending (though it's noted that he sometimes opposes individual measures that seem too blatantly pork-barrelish).

You provide an excellent example yourself of how two-faced he is, by citing his 'No' vote on the $87 B. That was a vote against funding the occupation. But does it mean he's against the whole enterprise? No. He voted for the IWR, and his remarks for the last 18 months have been entirely in accord with the Bush framework for the issue: to wit, that we're in Iraq only because of WMD and Saddam's "threat." Kerry is unable to pronounce a simple truth like, "We invaded largely because of the OIL, and to set up big military bases in Iraq." Also, his LA speech a few weeks ago makes clear that he supports the ongoing crusade. // Therefore, on balance, even though he was against the $87 B, he isn't at all against the whole enterprise. I would expect that his entire record of military spending votes would show the same pattern - basically supportive, though dissenting on some individual measures.

(For example, see the current thread titled "McCain says Kerry not weak on defense nor is his election a threat to national security." If McCain is saying this, it proves that Kerry is no dove, nor any consistent opponent of military spending.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #86
99. "...it would be necessary to review his whole record"
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 01:42 PM by sangh0
You mean you're rendering judgements of Kerry's record wrt military policy but you haven't even examined his record??? I guess you forgot the first five words from the sentence of yours that I quoted "To settle the question honestly..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Why don't you help us, with your profound knowledge of this topic?
Just tell us: How many military appropriation bills has Kerry voted on, in his 2 decades in the Senate? How many did he vote for; and how many against? Then we'll see if my general assessment was right or not. (Though if I was wrong, McCain would not be defending Kerry as "NOT weak on defense.")

Since you doubtless have this information at your fingertips, you should be able to post it here, within a very few minutes, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. RichM avoids the issue-He judged Kerry's record w/o knowing what it is
You won't see me issue sweeping condemnations of Kerry's record of voting for military expenditures. You, on the other hand, did do that. Now we find out that you don't know his record, but still talk about it as if you did know.

Since you doubtless have this information at your fingertips, you should be able to post it here, within a very few minutes, right?

Neither of us have that info, but only one of us (me) realizes that. That's why one of us (you) talks about Kerry without knowing what he's talking about, while the other one (me) only makes statements he can back up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Sangha sees through me once again! What can I say?
Damn, you're good. I thought no one would notice.

Drat! Foiled again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. And again, RIchM ignores the issue
and goes for the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
85. Is there information on how the DLC defines "freedom and democracy"? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. I'd say it's pretty close to the American version...
That is, the one in which "freedom" is defined solely in terms of capital enterprise, and "democracy" is a system of government through elected representatives so long as it fits within the framework of capital enterprise and does not challenge it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #87
95. That's *your* definition. It appears that "freedom and democracy" mean
different things to different people. I'd specifically like to see the DLC definition of "freedom and democracy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. Then get busy on Google and find it yourself, Rick
The reason I posted what I did is because it is relatively easy, based on other statements that the DLC has made on basic corollaries to "freedom" and "democracy", to extrapolate what they believe "freedom" and "democracy" to mean.

But if you're looking for a specific definition right from the horse's mouth, then my advice would be for you to saddle on up to a search engine, and start combing the DLC and PPI archives. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
88. I guess it all depends on your definition
of "perceptible difference".

I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the DLC's position, but it IS an alternative to Bush's militarism.

I also can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the SEP's foreign policy, either. Mainly because it's NOT going to happen.

We'll have two choices this fall. All other arguments are a waste of time. I can't afford to live in the WSWS ivory tower.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
108. I have argued the DLC's merits here before
But they seem to have swerved during the election year BACK into the very things they purportedly disavow: creating a "left-right debate". The Third Way disavows this specifically, and many progressive capitalists found this appealing.

In the thrall of the From and Reed wing, the true agenda has emerged however. It's about power, brokering power, and retaining power for brokering with lobbyist groups who just want what they want.

Too bad. I thought we had something going there. As a member of the finance community I see little compassion for the human condition as it is.

But I can stand and unflinchingly admit when the Socialists have a POINT.

And they do. This of course put the pro-Kerry supporters in a defensive mode; many will argue that there ARE justifiable wars. Perhaps so. This doesn't make them a desirable state of affairs to aspire to.

This is why Kerry gives me the creeps. He is unabashedly a creature of the very think tanks that espouse a new "domestic intelligence agency" and see the only course for us to take against the threat of terrorism as an armed conflict of global hegemony.

At least with this approach, all within the war machine will rejoice in it's perpetuation of profit and conflict, for we will ensure a constant supply of enemy combatants for generations to come in the foreseeable future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #108
116. The DLC approach is to prevent war through multilateral cooperation
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 03:26 PM by bigtree

I don't view the DLC's call for U.S. preeminence (superiority) as anything akin to Bush's plan for world hegemony (dominance).

The Democratic policy is clearly a rejection of the unilateralism of the Bush regime. I don't think that just because they seek an assertive role in world affairs that they automatically represent the worse aspects of interventionism.

These are the stated goals of the Democratic policy institute:

"Just over a year from now, the country will face a critical national election. But between now and then, Democrats must cross a threshold of credibility on national security issues before much of the public will listen to the rest of their powerful case for firing the incumbent.

Recent events in Iraq and the Middle East generally, compounded by the Bush administration's chronic failure to obtain international support for U.S. policies, have emboldened some Democrats to believe that the facts on the ground alone can erase the big advantage Republicans hold on national security issues.

That is wishful thinking. Simply exploiting administration policy failures without laying out a coherent critique of the GOP philosophy toward the rest of the world will take Democrats only so far in challenging Bush's claim that the country is more secure than it was when he took office. More importantly, Democrats must offer a clear, bold, and principled alternative strategy for advancing U.S. values and interests in a dangerous world if they are to refute Republican efforts to label them as untrustworthy on national security issues.

To that end, a distinguished group of 15 national security experts convened by the Progressive Policy Institute have drafted an important new document aimed at reconnecting Democrats with their proud tradition of muscular internationalism."

_______________________________________________________________

"Progressive Internationalism" proposes a six-step national security agenda for the Democratic Party and for the United States:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252147&kaid=1...

Advance democracy abroad to make us safer at home: Arguing that America's power should serve our democratic ideals, the authors call for a new push for political and economic reforms in the greater Middle East, which has emerged as the world's most unstable and dangerous region. Their strategy for encouraging forces of reform and modernization in the region includes a new Middle East Trade Initiative to spur growth and development, new aid for governments that embrace openness and accountability, and a crash program to reduce America's dependence on oil.

Prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction: If during the Cold War we faced an arms race to build weapons, we are now in a race to keep them out of the wrong hands. Democrats would pursue a collective approach in dealing with the dangerous situation in North Korea by engaging the United Nations and North Korea's neighbors; and would focus on preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through expansion of the successful Nunn-Lugar program, rather than relying on military preemption of the use of WMD.

Plug gaps in homeland defense: Democrats would bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland by creating America's first-ever domestic intelligence organization; offering state and local leaders useful guidance based on genuine threat assessment; merging terrorist watch lists and ensuring information sharing among law enforcement agencies; and by investing in resources to equip police, fire fighters and public health officials with the tools needed to protect their communities.

Transform the U.S. military and use it more effectively: Democrats would make room for investments to modernize and sustain America's military superiority into the future by dismantling obsolete Cold War infrastructure, working toward assuring the "information dominance" clearly necessary in dealing with today's threats, and making smarter use of American military power. They would also press for an expanded NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until security and stability have been achieved.

Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization.

Restore American global economic leadership: Democrats would revive U.S. leadership in the global economy by restoring the dynamism of the American economy through a rejection of the Bush administration's policies of fiscal recklessness; offering a fundamentally new approach to trade and economic relations with the Muslim world; renewing and expanding trade agreements and negotiations; and encouraging reform of multilateral lending institutions to tackle corruption and poverty more vigorously.
______________________________

Introduction

As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty." Jimmy Carter placed the defense of human rights at the center of our foreign policy. And Bill Clinton led the way in building a post-Cold War Europe whole, free, and at peace in a new partnership with Russia. Around the world the names of these Democratic statesmen elicit admiration and respect.

Today America is threatened once again. Our country needs a new generation of Democratic leaders to step forward and provide the same caliber of leadership as their 20th century predecessors.

Two years ago, terrorists declared war on America by killing thousands of innocent civilians. But America was not the only target: The September 11 hijackers acted in the name of a hateful ideology inimical to the cause of liberty everywhere. Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

The 21st century has brought a new set of threats whose origins are different but whose consequences are potentially as dangerous as the totalitarian challenges of the last century. We were fortunate that our terrorist enemies did not yet have the capacity to inflict catastrophic harm on us with weapons of mass destruction. Preventing a deadly fusion of terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and mass destruction weapons on the other is one of the paramount challenges of our time.

In times of danger, Americans put aside partisanship and unite in the defense of our country. That is why, as Democrats, we supported the Bush administration's toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law. We believed then, and we believe now, that this threat was less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for post-war reconstruction. Nonetheless, we are convinced that the Iraqi people, the region and the world are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone.

At the same time, we believe President Bush is in many respects leading America in the wrong direction on national security. Having triumphed on the battlefield in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are now in danger of losing the peace in both countries. By insisting on our right to act unilaterally, by ignoring intelligence assessments that conflicted with his desire to act, and by underestimating the resources needed to accomplish the missions, the president is putting America's battlefield gains in jeopardy. By focusing too much on U.S. military might as its main foreign policy instrument, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to fashion an effective, long-term political and economic strategy for changing the conditions in which Islamic fundamentalism breeds and from which new threats to our national security are most likely to arise. And by pushing ideologically motivated tax cuts and repudiating the nation's hard-won commitment to fiscal discipline, President Bush also is reducing our future capacity to act around the world and weakening American economic leadership and leverage.

In addition, the administration has yet to put an effective check on the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea or Iran, or to make any progress toward ending the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. On the domestic front, it has failed to devote sufficient energy, focus, and resources to the pressing task of defending our homeland against another terror attack. Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies, this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances built up over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low.

We recognize, however, that Democrats must do more than criticize this administration's increasingly incompetent handling of our nation's security. That alone will do little to allay the doubts that too many Americans have about our party's willingness or ability to pursue the tough defense and security policies today's world demands. To re-establish our credibility on national security, Democrats must offer a positive vision that spells out how we would do a better job of keeping Americans safe and restoring America's capacity to lead.

We begin by reaffirming the Democratic Party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy. We therefore support the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values. The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom.

While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better to protect our people and help shape a safer, freer world.

Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.

Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative.

Progressive internationalism stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary, to show what the Declaration of Independence called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion, to reduce human suffering where we can, and to create alliances and international institutions committed to upholding a decent world order. We must return to four core principles that have long defined the Democratic Party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism:

National strength. From Franklin Roosevelt's pledge to make America the "arsenal of democracy" to the present, Democrats have stood for a strong national defense. The armed forces that won such brilliant victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were bequeathed to the current administration by President Clinton. Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world. At the same time, we recognize that America's global influence is not just a reflection of our military power. It derives as well from our nation's other strengths: a large and dynamic economy, the capacity for innovation and self-correction, energetic diplomacy and the moral allure of our founding ideals. Democrats will not neglect these vital sources of American power.

Liberal democracy. Democrats believe that America should use its unparalleled power to defend our country and to shape a world in which the values of liberal democracy increasingly hold sway. History amply demonstrates that true peace and security depend not only on relations between states but also between state and society. Rulers who abuse their own people are more likely to threaten other countries, to support and spawn terrorism, to violate treaties, and otherwise flout norms of civilized conduct. British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it succinctly in his July 2003 address to Congress: "The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack."

Free enterprise. Democrats believe that economic freedom is integral to human progress. It is no accident that the world's freest countries are also its richest countries. We stand for equal and expanding opportunity at home and abroad. That is why we favor vibrant, entrepreneurial markets, open trade, and active governance to ensure honest competition. Such conditions not only unleash the creative potential of individuals, they draw nations closer together in a web of economic interdependence. And as the world's biggest economy, America has a vital stake in expanding a rules-based system of world commerce that ensures broadly shared prosperity while steadily lifting global labor and environmental standards.

World leadership. Democrats believe energetic U.S. leadership is integral to shaping a world congenial to our interests and values. World order doesn't emerge spontaneously; it must be organized through collective action by the leading powers, in particular the leading democracies. The main responsibility for global leadership falls on America as first among equals. But our country cannot lead if our leaders will not listen. The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions -- is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others. We believe, instead, in renewing our democratic alliances to meet new threats, in progressively enlarging the zone of market democracies by including countries that want to join, and in strengthening and reforming international institutions -- the United Nations, the international financial institutions, the World Trade Organization -- which, for all their obvious flaws, still embody humanity's highest hopes for collective security and cooperative problem-solving.
In the 20th century, Democratic statesmen like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy applied these core principles to lead America out of isolationism into world leadership. They championed democracy. They built up and used our armed forces to combat and contain fascism and communism. They expanded trade and created the world economic system that brought decades of unprecedented global prosperity. They created alliances like NATO that not only deterred the USSR but also subsequently helped to transform former adversaries into new allies. They recognized that to win the Cold War, America had to inspire not just fear in our enemies, but admiration and loyalty in our friends. To that end, they built an enduring network of alliances and institutions that shared our burdens, enlarged our influence, and encouraged other free peoples to stand with America.

That strategy led to victory in the Cold War, the consolidation of a new peace throughout Europe, and a dramatic expansion of global freedom. By the end of the 20th century, the United States was an historical rarity -- a dominant power more admired than feared by others.

That is the legacy the Bush administration inherited, then squandered.

Download the full text of this report. (PDF) http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Progressive_Internat...
_______________________________________________________________

I am not open to broad claims of Kerry's intent as it relates to these DLC documents. I do feel that we can interpret his views on these issues in the context of his actual statements and actions. In that regard I don't think we can tie him to every word in the DLC manifesto. I fully expect John Kerry to form and promote his personal philosophy on these issues if he reaches a position of ultimate influence.

John Kerry Issues Page: Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

John Kerry on Foreign Policy:
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Fore...

Text of John Kerry Speech at GU on Foreign Policy
http://www.themoderntribune.com/john_kerry_-_presidenti... ...

John Kerry on VoteMatch
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism; Progressive Internationalism
http://issues2002.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #108
126. What a bastardization of Kerry's position. Kerry was the voice on the LEFT
Edited on Thu Mar-18-04 03:58 PM by blm
in the DLC pulling against those centrists.

Kerry is NOT the product of a think tank as you want the gullible to believe. Kerry is the voice of progressive reason for the Democrats and always has been. In DC he is known as the Tough Dove. You think he came by that by doing the bidding of others? Horseshit!

Kerry is NOT influenced by the right on foreign policy. He has lived and breathed progressive foreign policy since he was a child. His greatest influences being his father who was an anti-imperialist diplomat, the lies of Vietnam, and the illegal use of covert activities to advance militaristic agendas during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-04 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
130. so??? What's the problem?
Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again, the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

I agree with this. For better or worse, and for whatever reasons that can be debated here, Islamic extremists have it in for us. Their perverted view of Islam dictates that they either convert non-believers or kill them.

But the passage above does not speak specifically of military action. Economic and humanitarian actions can also achieve the goals.

Democrats will maintain the worlds most technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world...

What is the problem here? I do hope we retain the worlds most technologically advanced military and use it wisely - like the Kosovo intervention.

Instead of relying only on military preemption of the use of WMD, Democrats would focus on preventing the acquisition of WMD.

An excellent policy and a vast improvement over that of the neocons. We should not rely on preemptive war but rather work to make sure nations do not obtain WMDs - like Clinton worked to do with North Korea.

In fact, the only problem I have with what you posted above is not cutting the Pentagon budget.

But I do have a problem overall with the source it is all taken from. WSWS is the same as NEWSMAX in my view. In fact, the article reads just like a NEWSMAX article but from an extremist left point of view.

I found it funny that is used the Bush administration to "prove" a point:

It was under Clintonfacilitated by the Soviet Unions dissolutionthat the doctrine of regime change was initiated. (how do we know this, RichM?)Despite the Republicans vilification of Clinton, the Bush administration never tires of pointing out that its policies in Iraq are a continuation of those begun by its predecessor.(AH! Bush told us so!)

All in all, the article frames the document from a negative point of view. However, if one is pacifist, then military strength and it's use is evil unto itself so there can really be no agreeing among those who see no reason for a strong military and those who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC