Democratic Hawks Urge Foreign Policy First

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1941710

Democratic Hawks Urge Foreign Policy First
Tough-On-Terrorism Democrats Urge Party to Put Defense, Foreign Policy Ahead of Politics

WASHINGTON May 9, 2006 (AP)— Tough-on-terrorism Democrats urged their party on Tuesday to put foreign policy ahead of political retribution in the fall elections, underscoring a divide between the party's hawks and doves that could frame the 2008 presidential campaign.

"Simply lashing out in anger at the current administration doesn't accomplish what we want," said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a likely candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Bayh and another potential White House hopeful, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, spoke at an event sponsored by the moderate Progressive Policy Institute to promote its book, "With All Our Might," a Democratic blueprint for fighting the war on terror.

Several party chiefs, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, have all but promised investigations and perhaps impeachment proceedings against President Bush should Democrats gain control of Congress this fall.

[Selatius]

1. Progressive Policy Institute...you mean the Corporate Policy Institute?

Last time I checked, the DLC and it's divisions including the PPI were handsomely subsidized by corporate donations from Enron to Exxon.

Oh no, the last thing we want is working class sensibilities overrunning the Democratic Party. That could mean higher taxes for big business and more accountability, and that's bad! Very bad! :sarcasm:

[Bob3]

2. Shut up - you're next

clueless nitwits the lot of them. They need some time outside the beltway - a lot of time - like years in the private sector many many years.

The war was and always was a huge mistake. Our Foreign policy for the next few years is going to limited to trying to repair the damage * and his incompetent jack offs have done. Our defense policy should be fairly simple to state a) get the hell out of Iraq b) put someone in charge of finding Osama Bin Ladden (or his corpse) c) stop treating the war on terror as a real war with a nation and concentrate on fighting terrorist groups with primarily civilian methods - International co-operation law enforcement, banking regs, increased port security and the like with the army used for firepower as needed. It's not war kids any more than the suppression of pirates in the 18th century was.

And the last thing we need is any gibberish about investigations some how being bad and inspired by vengeance. We are not vengeful, we are god damned outraged - and the language reflects that. And we need to cut the god damn rot out - folks we got limos full hookers being driven to service congressmen - the limos coming from company on the homeland security payroll the whole structure is rotten to the core - hell I figure 8 years of non-stop investigations will barely be enough.

edit - can't spell.

[Blackthorn]

26. The only problem is...

...your buying into the lie that the acutally needs to be a "war" or "police action" on terror in the first place. It all comes back to 9/11.

[leftchick]

3. I watched it today. They are Democratic Neocons

spreading democracy and all of the other horseshit. It was disgusting. :puke:

[fjc]

4. Sounds like the right approach to me.

I think there should be investigations, but not as part of the Fall campaign and not
with an explicit intent to impeach. I think this is a political mistake. I don't think most
voters are as interested in bringing Bush to task as they are in better tactics on the war
on terror. Having said that, I think we should get away from the language of war when it comes
to terror as it is an unending corrosion on civil liberties.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. There is more than enough...

apparent evidence that the phrase "Culture of Corruption" is more than just a phrase. To ignore that corruption would be incredibly corrosive to the structural integrity of government in the eyes of its citizens. If there have been crimes committed, there needs to be an accounting.

Backing away, because of worrying about perceptions, on the part of a relatively small number of people, will only serve to keep the corruption continuing. It must end and huge structural and procedural changes must be made.

It is time for accountability.

[Pithy Cherub]

6. After enabling the biggest foreign policy debacle

they want Dems to not seek political retribution, but not take responsibility for the foreign policy they screwed up by voting for bush's and willingly abdicated their moral compasses first. :rofl:

On the panel they trotted out Warner as the band-warm-up-the-crowd-crowd-soloist, first - like he has foreign policy experience. The one term governor mentioned he had two more stamps on his passport because he went to Israel and Jordan last week. He had nothing of substance or insight to offer except that the book had a typo listing his blurb and him as being from Virginia and Indiana. :rofl:

Bayh was even worse, but he at least took questions. Warner (smartly)didn't even stay at the table. :eyes:

[bemildred]

7. We need to make sure "retribution" includes these assholes too ...

They are a big part of the problem. Their sudden lack of interest in accountabilty speaks for itself.

[leftchick]

9. yes

they are a disgusting bunch. God it all feels so fucking hopeless.

:(

[AX10]

8. If Bayh become the President, he will be a do little person.

He may drop a few bombs here and there (it's the DLC way) but will do nothing to clean up the mess that he helped to create.

Wes Clark 08'!

[DeepModem Mom]

10. NYT/Reuters: Democrats Urged by Bayh, Warner to Challenge Bush on Security

Democrats Urged to Challenge Bush on Security
By REUTERS
Published: May 9, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moderate Democrats led by two potential 2008 White House contenders, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, urged the party on Tuesday to challenge Republicans on security issues and prove it can do a better job.

Democrats should embrace a security debate with President George W. Bush, who they said had been a failure in fighting terrorism, conducting the Iraq war and containing Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

"We can defeat Republicans on their own ground,'' said Bayh, a former Indiana governor who has called for a more muscular Democratic foreign policy approach. "They have been a lot better at national security politics than policy.''

Republicans have traditionally enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on military and foreign policy issues. It remains the lone issue on which polls show Americans favoring Republicans over Democrats, even as Bush's overall approval ratings continue to drop to record lows.

Warner, who has been trying to bolster his foreign policy credentials before a likely presidential run after one term as Virginia governor, said Bush's "almost unprecedented'' list of mistakes in Iraq threatened to turn that country into a terrorist stronghold....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-democrats.html

[babylonsister]

11. Bayh and Warner? Double ugh-how 'bout adding spying on Americans

to the list? :eyes:

[skipos]

12. Sounds good to me. nt

[AX10]

13. Democrats do need to challenge the GOP on security.

That's the only place where Dems are now behind in the polls. But, we need an ALTERNATIVE to the GOP's plans. It cannot be the GOP's "let's use military force first" policy.

[peacebird]

14. wow.... ya think?

"Warner, who has been trying to bolster his foreign policy credentials before a likely presidential run after one term as Virginia governor, said Bush's "almost unprecedented'' list of mistakes in Iraq threatened to turn that country into a terrorist stronghold...."


Doh!

And this counts as pithy analysis no doubt..... If Mark Warner is the best we can come up with then we deserve to lose the WH in 2008.....

[rodeodance]

15. They are right as we know Rove is making 'terrorism' a big issue. We

have to do it this time.

[Dr Fate]

16. The "far left' has been saying that since Bush's failure on 9-11...

And ever since he made us less secure by invading Iraq.

I'm glad the "clear eyed centrists" have come to reality.

And everyone knows reality has a liberal bias.

[JeffR]

17. Yet another sign of the Apocalypse

I'm in agreement with these two on something...

[Mass]

18. Democrats do challenge Bush on security. If Bayh means they have to

be more hawkish, I disagree, though.

BTW, this was in the 2004 agenda. It seems that Bayh and Warner were not paying attention. "Bayh and Warner said a stronger economy and energy independence would lead to greater security "

[rodeodance]

19. they were speakers on the Progressive Agenda this am. c-span. Maybe

they will repeat it tonight? worth the listen.

[Clarkansas]

20. If you replaced Bayh and Warner with Feingold and Boxer

everybody here would be hooting and hollering. But since that is not the case, this thread will most likely turn into a Bayh and Warner bashfest.

[Mass]

22. It would not be the same policy that is proposed, remember.

[Dr Fate]

23. The Finegolds & Boxers HAVE been challenging Bush's FP all along.

These DLC guys are Johnny-come-latelys...But I agree- lets WELCOME them to the fold rather than red-ass them too hard.

I'm Glad the DLC FINALLY now agrees that telling the truth about Bush's FP does NOT make us look weak on defense.

[xxqqqzme]

24. If it was Feingold & Boxer, I would believe them.

This is coming straight from the heart of the dlc and it is because the dlc 'suddenly' understands what all the real democrats have been screaming about for the last 5 years - world domination is not a good foreign policy.

[Mass]

21. " a new foreign policy book by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council"

OK, this is clearer like that.

[madfloridian]

25. Are you guys forgetting our Democrats did put out a plan...?

The president pre-empted it, but the ones mentioned above were there on stage, I think.

I wrote that the DLC was going to set all the policy just like they have been doing since the late 80s. And they are.

Dean, many others, Murtha, Kerry whenever they speak they criticize this president's job on national security. maybe those guys Warner and Bayh don't listent to TV.

They will be meeting in Denver in July to form the policies.

[mmonk]

27. If dems want to continue present foreign policy,

then there is no viable alternative to America's self-destuctive path. That's why I'm having a back door in case the path to hell isn't averted.