DLC and the UN.

[MGKrebs]

The DLC has comments on the recently released UN reform report.
http://tinyurl.com/4fd7f

I take issue with their position on item #2.

"The second big change the report recommends is to the U.N. charter to make it clear that terrorist acts against noncombatants cannot be justified by the exigencies of a military occupation. That, of course, has long been the rationale for Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel, and is now the rationale for the barbarous behavior being exhibited by Iraqi insurgents."

Now, I don't want to "support terrorism", but what is the deal here? It seems they are saying that even if some bully country comes in and occupies your country, the citizens are not allowed to fight back? I guess it allows citizen action against armed forces, but what sense does that make? Like Poland fighting Nazi tanks on horseback?

It's stupid anyway, because UN "rules" really only apply to organized entities. What resistance group would sign on to something like this? Is the US government going to sign this, in effect promising that if we are ever occupied, our future citizens won't fight back by any means necessary? Would those citizens feel compelled to honor an agreement signed by a government that no longer exists? What is the punishment for violating the rule anyway? They're already occupied!

How is it OK to drop 500 pound bombs in the middle of a city, but not OK to blow oneself up at a bus station?

Grrr.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. The DLC should DROP DEAD!

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

What the DLC/Fascist Party is saying is that you CANNOT defend yourself from an attack if your country is invaded!

:wtf:

:puke:

[Nicholas_J]

3. Unfortunately

The DLC like the U.S. government has some obligation to support the U.N. and the decisions it makes in order to oppose other actions taken against the U.N. and international law when one leader decides to buck international law and agreements.

I am not surprised that the democatic party lost this election more in part due to the inability of the members of the Democrtic Party to simply get behind the party, in spite of differences that each individual member has with the overall decisions of the group. That is where the stregth of the Republican lies. Though not all R$epublicans totally agree with Bush, they know one thing. To win you must back the decisions made by the party, even though you do not agtree with every decision made. Very much like candidates who threaten to take their supporters and use them against the party when the party decides it is going to select someone else as its candidate. Or openly attacks the party party leadership when it disagrees. Airing ones disagreemente in public gives the opposing side all of the aammunition it needs to defeat the Democrats.

Simply put, we had candidates who openly attacked their own party, rther than work from within it to make changes. You rarely sawRepublicans who disagree with Bush declare open war on the Republican Party.

However during this election cycle there were several candidates who openly attacked the Democratic Party, its leadership, which is composed of people who were for the most part, Democratically elected bt\y their constituents to represent. The DLC therefore is a body made up of people who were CHOSEN by their constitutency to represetn THEIR will. Thus the DLC represents the will of the majority of the ekectorate.

Most of Bush's campaign consisted of phrases take directly from the campaigns of candidates who attacked the Democratic Party and the DLC during the nomination process.

Very little in the attacks on the Republicans came from the mouths of Republicans itself. The fact that the DLC represents this will comes from the fact that its membership remains the same as long as the constitutency of its members keeps re-electing the DLC's members.

THos who attack the will of the democratic electorate are largely responsible for the loss this time to Bush. If you dont like it, Democratically select members for Congress, Governor, or whatever to office, and then they change the DLC, representing the voices of their own electorate.

What was clearly proven during this election was that "A House Divided cannot Stand".

[w13rd0]

5. Gee, I can't say I didn't see this mantra coming...

...pffft. The Swift Shits were from "other candidates"? Ossama was from "other candidates"? These are the factors the Kerry campaign itself blames. But oh no, you hold high in one hand a banner saying "get behind the party or else" and in the other a knife to make sure no one else tries to carry the banner more effectively. Whatever.

[Nicholas_J]

11. All of Bush's attacks on Kerry's Iraq platform

Came from Dean. The very idea that voting for the Iraq resolution was giving a "blank check" for war, came from Dean. The fact that the media was able to totrally disregard Kerry's own statements about handling Iraq, as secondary to goping after bin Laden First and then going after Iraq "with international involvement" came from Dean. No one bothered to look at the legislation, and its statements that every peaceful,diplomatic, and UN involved alternative be exhausted, except for Dean repetition of "blank check" for months until one of the candidates pointed out that the legislation preferred by Dean was no different than the signed legislation. The only difference between Deans slected Biden Lugar bill, and The one Congressional Democrats signed, was that Biden Lugar prohibited regime change.

The perception became the reality. The reality based on one candidate needeiong to get a base in the only place one was available for him. In those pissed at the will of thre majority who chose the democratic candidates holding office.

he evidenceis in Vermont. A state where liberals of one leaning or another constitute 59 percent of the Voters, yet where the Republican Governor keeps winning with 40 or 41 percent of the vote. THe fact that 59 percent of the Vermont Voters selected the Democratic cnadidate is another example of how the party in Vermont was split. MOst of the people voted nationally for a Democrat because they lean Democratic, but locally, the liberal parties split as a result of the Progressive Party, created within a year of Dean becoming Governor, in response to his attacks on the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, many of who split off to form the Progressive Party.

Dean used similar strategy to become Governor, He attacked the part of the party that he could not get a base, those who were moderated, treid to develop a base among left leaning young people who though the aprty was not doing what they wanted. While this could have won Dean the presidency, the same split would have occured once he sytarted actually initiating policy, and the Demococratic Party as a naitonal party would have been disasterouslly split. That is how he worked as Governor, every indication was that he would have behaved as he did nin the past,reverting to highly conservative Fiscal policy, while abandoning the Democratic Party's social platform. Leaving the field wide open for a third party candidate simuilar to Nader to create a party more fitting the policies of a larger percent of Democratic Voters. Large enough to kill the arguments that were used to get Nader supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee.

Sorry, The majority of the Democratic voters want and agree with the DLC. Those who cannot work withing the framework of the will of the majority consign liberal parties to fractitious and fruitless squabbling, This leaves a smarter and more monolithic Republican party to clean up.

One keeps asking why John Kerry. who "should have been 20 points ahead of Bush" stayed so close to Bush in the campaign. The fault lies as much if not more in the Democratic Voters, rather than in the Democratic candidate. The old saying that people get the Governme3nt they deserve has been proven a truism here. Keep craking the foundations of the party of the left, no matter how close it is to the center, and sooner or later, that party splits.

You can see this in the responses of Republican voters, many of who do not support ALL of the Neo-conservative platform. But they would have voted for Bush regardless of who the Democrats put up. This is not Europe, it never will be, we have a two party system for all intents and purposes, permanently. Dividing the one party that leans to the left, while leaving the party that leans to the right monolithic, gives the party of the right all the advantages it needs to stay in power. And it will stay in power as long as we do not purge the Dmeocratic Part of all divisive figures who spout the bullshit promises of "changing the party" when they get elected. The machine is bigger than any single candidate and if John Kennedy could say when he got elected" "I give orders, but nothing gets done" in response to what happens when the party technocrats drag their feet, no other candidate is going to get anything done to change the party. It gets changed as more and more elcted officials are changed at the local level who support a platform that is what the electorate wants, not the other way around.

Notice that it is Bush who is having trouble with legislation because of opposition from REPUBLICANS. They put him in office, they would not dare do anything to challenge the monolithic power of their party by challenging him because they know- that in order to rule, they must have all of the parts of government in their power, Senate, House, and presidency.

This president is one of the few that have caused REpublicans to start talking about switching parties. Jeffers has become independent, Chafee is talking about switching to Democrats ( because he sees what is coming among REpublicans who are working to run more neo-con candidates in their primaries in order to get rid of dissention. They are also planning to try to unseat Olympia Snowe and a few other moderates come 2006.

Democrats should do the same. Anyone who opposes the leadership of the party shoul be gotten rid of, because the group is more important that the dmogogue who promises changes that will not occur unless the majority of people wants those changes.

Another sign was that Kerry, the most liberal candidate in Congress, eneded up as the nominee. A sign that Democrats are far more left leaning than thought, in some areas, but they do not want a candidate attacks the party as it exists. Because down under, they know that candidate is attacking them.

Sometimes it works, but only in places that are a bit different than the national profile indicates. The Republicans know that five fingers as a fist, can give blows that hit far harder than five fingers separated, which can be pulled further apart, or at best, give a slap.


The divided Democratic Party, the attacks on the DLC and other groups which after all are comprised of people elected by the majority of their constituency is a bad plan for the future.

THe Swift Boat atacks were an aside, and in the end, according to every poll, had no effect on those who supported Kerry to begin with.Thy were beleived opnly by those who intended to support Bush, and ignored by those who did not. Attacking the party as a whole had more of an effect, and in fact gave comfort to the enemy.

[Zhade]

41. "Biden Lugar prohibited regime change."

Pretty important difference, I'd say. Like the difference between invading and occupying a country, or not.

[Nicholas_J]

56. Biden Lugar allowed

Everything that Bush has done so far, including invasion, occupation, and everything else in order to "Get Rid of WMD's" It asserted the existance of WMD's and allowed the U.S. to invade, and search for them, doing everything that has been done so far, except that when we left, we leave saddam in power, Thats it. It did not demand that only diplomatic measures be used, and in fact it had less focus on the use of diplomatic measures at all. The Biden Lugar Amendment was an addition to the Resolution that was passed, a simple addition to the War resolution that addedd the phrase that regime change would not be allowed. It was the same resolution with an addendum and a stupid addendum at that, as it did not one thing to prohibit invasion or occupation.

It was written in order to get more Democratic Support in the senate.

It allowed the Bush administration to use any degree of force to enter Iraq, occupy Iraq, and search for WMD's regardless of international findings or considerations.

THis is why Dean was quoted ayt the time for supporting UNILATERAL invasion of Iraq, setting a time limit of 30 to 90 ays for Iraq to come clean. If not he approved of the U.S. invading to make the determination itself.

These direct quotes reported by Jake Tapper and others were before the invasion were comnpletely forgeotten once the invasion occured and
a candidate flip flopped and becamew the anti-war candidate.

The media again simply changing the perceptions.

[Zhade]

58. Can you source your assertions? Thanks in advance.

NT!

[Nicholas_J]

59. In a number of places

Oliphant Said Bush Could Have Just as Easily Gone to War with Biden-Lugar. "Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly. One of those alternatives - offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana - authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat. This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy….. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war. After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later.

http://www.politicsus.com/011304ajk.htm

MOst of the Democrats INCLUDING Kerry, Daschle and others supported Biden Lugar, until it failed to pass. Note the statements about Deans changing support of the legislation at all until it failed, and then the Democrats ovteds on the House bill once it was all that was left.

The only real difference as noted is in the wording. Biden Lugar says that any degree of force is allowed to "Disarm" Hussein.

In fact, the legislation that was signed did not directly call for theremoval of Hussein. There are literally thousands of articles that point out the fact that there were virtually no limits to presidential authority embedded into Biden Lugar.

The Bush Adminstration chose to equate the eleiminatiopn of WMDs with the removal of Saddam Hussein.


A brief discussion of all of the amendments offered by a peace organization recommends the only amendment that required TWO resolutions from the U.N. That was the Levin Amendment.

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46

http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=33

And an interview at one of the debates where Gephardt point out the wording of Biden Lugar, where Dean has claimed that Biden Lugar required a return to the U.N. and Gephardt provides the wording of Biden Lugar:

I don't know how to characterize this except as a lie, and one that lies at the heart of the Dean mystique. Biden-Lugar does NOT require the president to come back to Congress for permission. It says that in the absence of a Security Council resolution authorizing war, the president must merely provide Congress his determination that the threat to the US from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program "is so grave that the use of force is necessary." He merely has to inform Congress of this determination. There is nothing about permission. There is nothing here that could have stopped Bush, since he in fact did assert exactly what Biden-Lugar would have required.


http://www.bigleftoutside.com/comments/2/p91.100

u An alternative by Biden and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that would allow force to be used only to disarm any weapons of mass destruction Iraq might have, not the broader goal of regime change that Bush has advocated. It also would put increased emphasis on securing international support, but would allow unilateral action by the United States if the United Nations fails to act.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/4211830.htm

The final resolution which passed did not exist at the time that Biden Lugar was offered. What ended up being passed was a compromise between the legislation demanded by Bush, which had No role for the United Nations, and the final legislislation which had a role for the U.N. but was Bush could drop U.N. support by stating that he felt that Hussein constituted a threat to the U.S. and that the U.N was not doing enough. There is an interview wih Carl Levin as well in which Levin who's amendment was the only one that actually required a return to the U.N. is critical of Biden Lugar as being extremely inadequate:

Biden-Lugar Amendment
MARGARET WARNER: Well, Senator Levin, that brings up the other big difference. You think this authorization should be confined to dealing with weapons of mass destruction, not regime change or anything else. Make your argument...

May I say also that the Biden-Lugar Resolution also is focused on that threat and not all of the other problems which Saddam creates. And they are many. I can totally agree on that. There are a huge number of problems that he creates particularly for his people. Bull it's the weapons of mass destruction, which are so threatening which we should focus on going after and removing.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-03.html

There are more than enough point made by a significant number of people involved with the Iraq war indicating that A). Biden Lugar was not significantly different than the final resolution. And B.) that Biden Lugan was inadequate.

What becomes obvious as Deans support of Biden Lugar is questioned is that Dean had no idea whatsoever of what Biden Lugar said, and supported it only after the final legislation, the joint legislation, a compromise on the original House bill went through the senate and with changes agreed upon by the House.




Kerrys own inteview on hardball points out the elements of Biden Lugan and how the problems involved with this amanedment caused its failure to pass:

KERRY: Let me correct you. Howard Dean is not clear and he is not simple. He has, in fact, embraced several positions. One of which is the Biden-Lugar amendment which, in fact, gave authorization to the president but under a slightly different wrinkle than the one we passed. Howard Dean also said he believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He believed that Colin Powell was correct.

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_2003_10_20_Hardball.htm

The most amusing aspect of Biden Lugar is that Biden LUGAR does not exist. Lugar removed his name from the bill in the hours before it was slated to go up for vote. One problem with locating the text of Biden Lugar even on Thomas.gov is this fact.

[Forkboy]

61. This is a record

you made it TWO whole posts into a thread before launching into your memorized Dean tirade.

Congrats buddy!!!!!

[Sterling]

44. I am will get behind they DLC.

So I can frag em in the ass. Metaphorically speaking of course. Before we take on the pukes again we must purge the party of these fat cat douche bag RW vichy Dems.

[BareskinMatt]

21. Nail, Head

Well said.

[MGKrebs]

29. Yup. I remember Gephardt attacking Dean in Iowa.

Gep was going nowhere. Dean fought back. They both lost. Who is the non-DLC favorite among those three?

And it's not a matter of changing the DLC. It's a matter of changing the DNC so that the DLC has less influence. And I will certainly be working towards that. I don't deny the DLC a place at the table, but we are LOSING. Under DLC leadership, "liberal" has become a bad word!!! Nobody knows what we stand for!

I think it is fairly clear now that it wasn't the DLC's policies that propelled Clinton to victory. It was Clinton's singular political skill that dragged them along with HIM. After all, the DLC is batting zero for Pres. candidates other than Clinton.

Time to smell the coffee!

[Sterling]

45. It's a matter of changing the DNC so that the DLC has less influence.

sign me up. How do we start?

[MGKrebs]

52. Not sure where you are, but here in Georgia,

each county Party is having elections THIS SATURDAY for new state Party committee members. State party representatives to the national Party Committee will then eventually elect a new party chair in January.

The spouse and I decided that we both shouldn't run for committee seats, so she is definitely going to run, and I am just going to the meeting. But you don't have to decide until you get there, so I may change my mind!

[MGKrebs]

67. Follow up: The spouse won a seat on the state committee.

Congratulations Casper! You can make a difference!

:thumbsup: :hug: :yourock: :kick:

[Nicholas_J]

54. Sorry

Clinton was the result of what created the DLC adn not the other way around. There was simply no way that a sixties and seventires style liberal was going to ever win again after the "ME" eighties.

Clinton is the result of the social desires of the American People rather than the other way around. Once it was the baby boomers who were working and shelling out the taxes to support the Democrats social ideology, and not mommy and daddy who were supporting the baby boomers ability to be critical of the Republican, the birth of the mythological fiscal conservative, socially liberal democrat was born.

We promse you that we can provide all of the social benefits, liberties, high class education, clean environment, cheap health care that you want and you can still have your two Beamers, buy your kids their own Beamers, two cars, six vacations to the Seychelles a year, and guess what, we will lower your taxes. Clinton was simply able to sell the message well, even though there was no way in hell that he could keep the promise. All of those welfare mothers who are now out there making GOOD money (also known as minimum wage), all those peopple who have lost their health insurance, have all done so base on the promises that the American People wanted to hear, and blame on someone else once they have elected the candidate who states that he could do something for nothing.

The candidate was created by the times, not the reverse.
Anyone who claims this is the case is simply trying to do the American usual: Push the blame somewhere else. American Democrats created the DLC and the necessity ot the candidate to craft his lessage to meet the expectations. Unrealistic as they are.

Any candidate who runs by stating that what you want isw going to cost you will lose, adn that essentiallywas the message of the Democratic Party before the DLC: Your social desires and your ethical desires will just have to cost you. No one wants to hear that unpleasant truth in America. Even Clinton did not speak of raising taxes to get the deficit under control until he already clinced the election. The effort to find some reason to impeach him was that he also decided that the Rich were going to have to feel the bite of tax increases.

It is sheer greed and sheer lazinness on the part of American Voters and those who criticize any party's institutions. A sort of Democratic Party equoivalenmt of Republicans who can not find Bush responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong, Democrats do something worse, they blame the party and its candidates for everything they hjave made the candidate have to do to get elected.

[Zhade]

40. "Airing ones disagreemente in public gives the opposing side..."

Gee, that kinda sounds like Ashcroft telling Congress not to "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

Sorry, I don't do lockstep.

[eridani]

60. You are confusing DNC with DLC

The former has elected representatives, the latter does not.

[UpsideDownFlag]

14. *ahem* nicely put. nt

[BareskinMatt]

16. Theatrics aside, targeting women and kids with suicide bombs is not

Self defense. It's genocide, terrorism and other non-defensive acts.

A 500lb precision bomb dropped on the people that target women and kids for death is self defense. It's quite clear to most people.

[K-W]

18. Where can I get one of these magic bombs?

I like magic.

[BareskinMatt]

24. Sign up and join and US Armed forces

Be all that you can be.

[IrateCitizen]

27. They don't make those magic bombs in the armed forces...

They make the kind that kill everyone and everything in the blast radius. Bombs don't discriminate -- they make both the guilty and innocent equally dead.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

19. So you are justifying the killing of innocent lives by......

one party while condemning it by another?

:eyes:

Enjoy your stay while it lasts

[BareskinMatt]

25. So you are putting word in my mouth...

while making vague threats for me voicing my opinion?

:eyes:

Enjoy blaming a newbie with a different opinion

[Forkboy]

63. One can easily check a poster's history

I've yet to see you say anything remotely Democratic and/or Progressive.

Damn straight it's a different opinion :puke:

[Darranar]

32. "500 lb precision bomb"...

sounds like "compassionate conservatism"....

[MGKrebs]

38. What is terrorism, you might ask?

"As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html

And the new UN definition (pg. 49 here: http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf )

(d ) Description of terrorism as “any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”.

So you can see, self-defense has nothing to do with it.

[Forkboy]

62. Is that you Mr Ashcroft?

[w13rd0]

2. The DLC is trying to make sure everyone knows...

...that they support Israel unquestioningly, and that they are pro-occupation and pro-bombing. "Strong on Security" and all that jazz.

[Nicholas_J]

7. And the DLC supports Israel because....

THe majority of the people who elect each member of the DLC supprt Israel. Pure and simple.


You dont like the DLC, well then elect ANTI-ISRAEL candidates to office. They then become members of the DLC. Thats how the DLC works. Its membership is comprised of elected officials.

That is unfortuantely how a democracy works. The people elect candidates based on their platforms. An Anti-Israel Platform is the surest way to not be elected, or get unelected as one can find, short of a candidate who openly promises to end social security, medicare, and raise middle class taxes by fifty percent while giving CEO's a tax holiday. Openly. They are going to do it anyway, but you even hear Bush openly shy away from cutting Medicare and Social Security, evne though Democrts know thats what he has in mind.

I am tottally sure that one of the reasons that Bush remaines so securely in Power is that the Republicans know how far to go when attacking policy. They attack a particular policyy decision BUT NEVER atack the party or its leadership. That is one note that Democrats cannot get voters who lean in its direction to "Get".

Such actions will keep Republicans in power for as long as they wish to retain it.

An example is unfortunately Deans Vermont. Dean maintained his own personal power by attacking and alienating the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, while currying favor with conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. But this resulted in the creation of a new party in Vermont in reaction to Deans conservatism, the Vermont Progressive Party, and created the Republican Party as a Minority Party that holds a plurality, but not a majority of the vote. Personal desire for power led Dean to destroy his own party in Vermoont, but kept him in officw for as long as he wanted it, because of the natuire of conservatism in Vermont. Most Vermonters Republicans are rather moderate REpublicans. Unfortunately the Republicans who were running against Dean most of the time were either weak candidates, or ne0-cons like Ruth Dwyer. THough the Dmeocrats werre the larger Party, Deans own personla conservatism split the Dems and he was able to pick up the requisite numbers of moderate Democrats as he needed.

When He ran for President, he simply reverted , attempting to run as a Liberal, attacking the democratic party moderates, His record was too unlike his campaign, which resulted in Dick Gephardts beinbg able to tear Dean;s record apart openly. But the damage to Democratic Party cohesion had been done. And most of Bush's anti Kerry rhetoric was taken directly from Deans attacks on the Democratic Party and its candidates, most particularly the DLC. WHich while Governor, Dean hin\mself was a leading force in shaping. Dean leap frogged over a number of governors with more seniority and was given the leadership of the Democratic Governors Association, because he represented the "New Democrat" that the DLC wanted to see shaping the Democratic Party.

Like 1972, a candidate ran on attacking the Democratic Party leadership and platform, and this led to Richard Nixon winning a second term. While such tactics can work for an individual who is working out their opwn personal ambitions, it is bad strategy for the future of party control. The key to keeping one party winning is to keep the party itself in mind. When running for the nomination, attack those you are running against all you want. Never attack the group or any of its ledership organizations. This is a recipe for disaster. And it happened this time just as it did in the 70's

[w13rd0]

10. I can't believe you wasted that much time replying...

...especially since I've this curious feeling I've heard all this from you before. And true to form, it wasn't "other candidates" you were talking about, it was Dean. Furthermore, your verbosity does nothing to lend credibility to your assertions. Oh to hell with it.

Ping, please feed in another stack of pages, ping

[Nicholas_J]

12. Because Dean was the primary instigator of such attacks

Even Kucinich, arguably the most left leaning of all the candidates, never attaked the party or any of its organs himself.

Dean alone acted as a divisive figure in keeping with his history.
IN the past he relentlessly used demeaning attacks on liberals in his state, in a number of cases comparing them to communists.

A sane party would strip Dean of his membership. nad let him play the nader game.

Most of Bush's direct attacks on Kerry matched Deans' statements of "flip flopper" and "Kerry authorized the war" Without refering to Kerry' well documented opposition to unilateral use of force in Iraq.

Bush did not use the Swift Boat arguments in his own campaign. He re-iterated for the most part, Deans attacks on Kerry. Re-inforcing the split nature of the Democratic Party without having to do so openly. He simply repeated Deans arguments, giving Bush a good deal of weaponry.

Given the actual nature of the legislation, the legislation did not do so. The campaign created the reality, and Dean attacked the entire party for his own ends. Your responses are based on your pesonal opinions. YOur opinion does not chahnge the reality.

[Minstrel Boy]

50. "Bush re-iterated for the most part, Dean's attacks on Kerry"

And you point out an excellent reason why Dean was the superior candidate to go head-to-head with Bush.

"A sane party would strip Dean of his membership."

You mean the party that allowed Zel Miller (D) to address the Republican National Convention?

[Zhade]

55. Indeed. It IS rather amusing to want to cast out Dean before MILLER.

I just can't fathom such hatred of Dean (my #2 choice).

:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

30. Wait a tick

I know of a DLC member, Jim Moran who actually has gotten in trouble for his remarks on Israel before.

[Darranar]

35. Moran was against the Iraq war too. He's the exception, not the rule. n/t

[JohnKleeb]

37. hes a cofounder of the house New Democrats with Roemer

He's definely DLC like on other issues, the guy is in no way an economic liberal.

[Sterling]

48. THe majority of the people who elect each member of the DLC supprt Israel.

And what sucks about that is that they are asmall minority of the party yet control the purse strings and influence the party at large's options of choices in policy and choice of candidates.

More trickle down nonsense.

[BareskinMatt]

22. Not so much "support" as it is DEFEND

Nearly all of us support the defense of Israel. She is under constant attack from those that desire her to be abolished and pushed into the sea. It is the defense of Israel where we will never falter.

[Nicholas_J]

36. Nearly all but not all

I don't support the U.S. policy to support Israel at all costs, which is what the policy is. However, I do not expect the DLC, the Democratic Party,, or any organ of the Democratic Party to change its point of view because I as a minority voter expect them to.

My personal thought is that the time or supporting Israel's existance is long past, and ther is a large difference between providing the means to defend oneself, and the means to be an agressor nation, as is the case with Israel.First of all, Israel does not need to be a major nuclear power for the U.S. to assist in defending Israels right to exist. Estimates are that Israel has more nuclear firepower than eeither England or France. Israel could easily be defended by U.S. tropop positioning in the Eastern Mediterannean, witjhout having to provide Israel with three illion dollars in Mmilitary aid a year. THe fact that Israel is an artificially created wester colony, the last gasp ogf Western Colonialoism need not be mentioned eithe ayou note, most A,ericans support the defense of Israel. To attack the representatives of the voters for doing what the voters seems to want is rather inappropriate. This is pretty much spitting in the wind behavior and it has contnually come back to hurt democrats and not Republicans. Once you start devouring your own, an external enemy is not needed. You are your opponents best weapon.

[BareskinMatt]

43. In the bigger picture

It's wise to have a major player in the area in case some rebels get uppity and try to take over the region.

[Forkboy]

64. damn uppity folks

Psssst...what about the US trying to take over the region?

[BareskinMatt]

65. Take over as in plant our flag and make another US state?

Or plant the seeds of democracy and let the current owners reap the benefits? Do we still have troops in Kosovo / Serbia?

[MGKrebs]

66. Who is "we"? NATO? Then the answer is yes.

[Sterling]

46. In four short years I have gone from thinking like you to

not supporting the existence of Israel as a country any longer. Why? Because of what I have seen from many supporters of Israel on boards like this. Now that I understand the mind set and actions of the Israeli's it is clear that supporting that state can only lead to world conflagration and massive tragedy.

[Nicholas_J]

53. That is the way that I think

Israel was founded essentially, by the western powers that colonized it after World War I, and there is little historically to warrant the creation of such a state. However the reality is that the vast majority of Christian Americans base their desire to support Israel on their religious belief that Israel was given to the Israelis by God, while ignoring the religious beliefs of another 1 billion residents of the area.

Then they bitch and moan about the fact that the people dispossesed from the land they lived in for generations utilise the only means available to them. Bombs and suicide bombers. Give the Palestinians three billion dollars in military aid, and the training to use it, and then let them use the same methods that the Israelis use.

Israel is an artifiial state, creates out of the beleifs and thje tribal wars in Europe, and the guilt that those tribal wars resulted in Auschwitz. The most unjust part is that the Jews who were given restitutions for the Holocaust were given someone elses lands. Didnt cost Germany or Italy one acre of territory.

On top of this, The U.S. only enforces one half of the chrters that created Israel. A Palestinian state was created as well, and little has been done to give the Palestinians a sense that the U.S. is willing to uphold the ENTIRE deal that was used to create Israel.

he U.S. has been far more active in preventing the creation of the requisite Palestinian State in Israels favor, The Palestinians have no reason to trust the U.S. at all. George Bush , who has had the greatest opportunity to rectify the situation has dragged his feet at every step of the way, demanding that the Palestinians sit back and accept being shat on, and only then will he do something to for them, as long as it suits Israel.

Then again, this is what the majority of the American Voters sems to s\desire. To criticize a Democratically constituted body for doing what is the will of those who elected those members to office to do is fairly ignorant. One of the things that the members of the DLC were elected for was to support Israel. Like it or not, this is the way a Democracy works. You elect people to do what you want them to do, not to do something else. If you do something else, in general you are elected out.

The DLC is not the problem. The electorate is. Thats the reality of the situation. Complaiing about the DLC, and talking about how you are going to change the Democratic party is simply a politicians way of trying to con people into voting for them. Nothing would change by cvoting for the person who claims they are going to make big changes.

It is generally a political lie, made to people who simply don not like what the majority wants. People not only get the kind of government that they deserve, they generally get the kind of Governmenmt that they are.


Again, by opposing groups like the DLC, theose who oppose it are in general opposing the democratic process in its entirety.

Largely, they are of a dictatorial bent insisting that they are correct, and everyon else is incorrect. This results in the kind of results we had in this election. A fractured Democratic Party fracutired by giving way to a very small minority that shouts loudnand tends to be abusive, while the Republicans keep their eye on the prize and keep the prize. Republicans are now refusing to support a number of pieces of legislation that Bush wants, but come election time, they will become a very disciplined army, while some dem,ocrat or otther wil start attacking the DLC, the DNC and anyone else out of their desire to personal power. Republicans will; put awy their own differences to keep ac republican in the White House, to keep a majorioty legislature, and then try to control the Supreme Court for decades, While the Democrats tear their own party apart.

No one candidate is going to change the Democratic Party. It moved to the center in the 90's because a very large number of voters wanted it to move to the center. A very clever candidate named Ross Perot knew than and he crafted a campaign designred to appeal to Moderate Republicans and tore a sizable chunk of votes away from Republicans. They learned from that. Democrats had an advantage as Ralph Naders brand of governing doesnot appeal to a large percentage of voters.

Another candidate gained a base by getting those who didnt like the move to the center to support him, but his own past record just kept getting in the way. Those who supported him refused to look at that record, ,blindly beleiving the promises that he was gonna change things. Those with more of a tendency to check out ewhat they are buying looked at what this candidate has actually done in the past, rather than simply beleiving it because he was tailoring his campaign message to a the group he needed to get some sort of base. It took very little convincing to get the additional voters that Dean needed to catapult his candidacy out of a youth, internet based candidatcy into the mainstream. Dick Gephardt and others did nothing but remind
the public of statements made by Dean in the past, of his record of actually being one of the core members of the DLC. Dean was one of the main developers of the DLC, was its handpicked leader of the Democratic Governors Association. But when he needed to create a base in order to gret a camapain off the ground, he attacks the DLC (his membership conveniently ending when he retires from elected office)He was a DLc member up until this point, but seeing and one of its major supporters of the move to a centrist policy for the Democratic Party. Whateve the DLC is, Dean had a large hand in its formulative years and the shope it took. Such behavior is politically opportunistic. But it is extremely bad for a party's future. This is why the Dem,ocratic Party has to get its act together and work lock step when trying to get national figures elected, and get rid of anyone who threatens the unity of the party as the organizing principal of party politics in the U.S. Like it or not, we have a two party system, the party is generally bigger than the candidate, and divisive campaigning assures that the opposing party will always win. Divide and conquer is a cliche that has advance to a truism. If you can get your opposition to divide itself, so much the better for you.

[K-W]

4. Oh the barbarians!

I love that we still use derivatives of the word barbarian to dehumnize the 'others'.

[Forever Free]

6. Call them what they are...TERRORISTS

I am deeply disturbed at some posts that seem to apologize for insurgents and suicide bombers merely using the rationale that they are fighting as liberators. Nothing EVER excuses deliberate acts to kill innocent civilians, for whatever political ideology or belief. Palestinian suicide bombers and Iraq insurgents that behead hostages are not immune from this. Reciprocally, American soldiers are not either.

Fighting for liberation or against oppression is NEVER justification for committing terrorist acts. There shouldn't be a double standard for anyone. I support the DLC's position and resent the unwarranted attacks by many members of DU on the DLC. DLC is not "Republican lite" or "fascist" merely because you disagree with some of their stances.

You are not a liberal if you aren't tolerant of those that differ in your political ideology or beliefs.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Goody -- a resident DLCer!

I am deeply disturbed at some posts that seem to apologize for insurgents and suicide bombers merely using the rationale that they are fighting as liberators. Nothing EVER excuses deliberate acts to kill innocent civilians, for whatever political ideology or belief. Palestinian suicide bombers and Iraq insurgents that behead hostages are not immune from this. Reciprocally, American soldiers are not either.

I don't see anything apologetic or celebratory here about the violence in Iraq. Rather, I see a line of thought grounded in realism -- the realism that when you open up Pandora's box and stage an invasion and occupation of a country, such violence is to be accepted. Such has always been the case throughout history, and it will always be the case. People don't take kindly to occupation by a foreign power. As I recall, the "official" line of the DLC was that they supported the invasion of Iraq, if not in precisely the manner in which it was handled. I'm sorry, but you don't support such an action and then suddenly cry foul when things don't go your way.

Fighting for liberation or against oppression is NEVER justification for committing terrorist acts.

Terror begets terror. Violence begets violence. Once again, this is a simple FACT that is borne out throughout history. Except in specific instances that were largely propelled by the personality of a few players (i.e. Gandhi and the Indian independence movement, MLK and the civil rights movement), resistance will inevitably turn violent, especially in the face of a violent occupying power.

There shouldn't be a double standard for anyone.

You're absolutely correct. The US, if it were to abide by this simple rule, would immediately withdraw from Iraq and begin to pay reparations. While we're at it, we'd pay reparations to the black community and remaining Native American tribes as well. But, sadly, history is littered with examples of glaring double standards. The double standard you're decrying here is quite insignificant in the greater view of history.

I support the DLC's position and resent the unwarranted attacks by many members of DU on the DLC. DLC is not "Republican lite" or "fascist" merely because you disagree with some of their stances.

The DLC is quite complicit in moving the Democratic Party to the "center" and abandoning traditional constituencies. It advances corporatist policies and eschews the populism that forged the New Deal and Great Society. It embraces a belligerent foreign policy dedicated to maintaining an American hegemony that no longer exists. Hell, one of its prime members -- Will Marshall -- was a signatory to the Project for the New American Century.

You are not a liberal if you aren't tolerant of those that differ in your political ideology or beliefs.

There's nothing liberal about the DLC. Al From and Bruce Reed would be the first to tell you. As for tolerance, I absolutely embrace the right of DLCers to believe what they want to believe. However, since I view their beliefs as destructive for the Democratic Party, and the nation, I will also not cease in denouncing their "rightward drift" of the Democratic Party. We already have one pro-corporate party in the US. The Democrats were successful when they were able to present themselves as "pro-people". The DLC does not realize this.

[Forever Free]

13. Your arguments have serious flaws

I have stark differences over certain issues. The United States cannot withdraw from Iraq in its current state. Such would be a disastrous mistake of unimaginable proportions. We cannot rationally allow Iraq to become a nexus for violent Islamic radicalism and further endanger the security of this country.

On a second issue, your definition of liberal is flawed. Being liberal doesn't mean being anti-war and anti-corporation. It is a state of mind. It allows for difference in thought and belief. To say the DLC is for unchecked big business and corporate greed and corruption is entirely ridiculous. Democrats were indeed successful when Bill Clinton used a populist message to win election in 1992. President Clinton also happens to be an enthusiastic supporter of the DLC and their "Third Way" approach to national politics.

How can you claim the DLC's beliefs to be "destructive to the Democratic Party and the nation" when it was their exact policies (manifested through Bill Clinton) which brought the country unparalleled prosperity, the lowest crime rates in a century, a balanced budget, and great respect throughout the world? The DLC and the Democratic Party has always been pro-people. To claim otherwise simply because you disagree with their stance on some issues is grossly unfair and irresponsible.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I'm afraid you and I will find little common ground here, my friend.

WRT Iraq, I'm a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.net). I was lucky enough to not go over before I was discharged, but the general consensus from those who were "boots on the ground" is that our military presence in Iraq is the primary cause for the violence that is taking place. As Albert Einstein famously quipped, "The problems of the world will not be solved by the thinking that created them in the first place." I don't know if you realize it or not, but there is a heavy dose of "white man's burden" inherent in statements about Iraq such as you have just said.

Some 35 years ago we were embroiled in a conflict in a nation called Vietnam. Establishment thinkers predicted a bloodbath if we were to leave. But when we left, that bloodbath failed to materialize. In fact, it could be argued that there was far LESS bloodshed in Vietnam after we left than before.

The greatest danger to our country is not radical Islam -- rather, it is the foreign policy promoted by both parties that helps create the environment for Islamic radicalism to flourish. It is our unconditional support for Israel. It is our support of autocratic regimes that suppress democratic reform. It is our addiction to oil and the resultant willingness to pursue whatever means necessary to maintain control over the Middle East that is our greatest danger.

Second issue -- you say it yourself that Bill Clinton won in 1992 on a populist message. Problem is, the DLC as a whole eschews populism. They have even come right out and said that the Democrats should largely abandon the blue-collar vote and instead focus on the white-collar professionals. The problem with this approach is that it leads to social liberalism and economic conservatism. It alienates the social conservatism that is innate to large sections of the blue-collar working class, while at the same time abandoning economic populism that was traditionally the "hook" that created a democratic majority in this country for many years.

Since you brought up Bill Clinton, let's take a look at his major accomplishments during his presidency. Health care -- couldn't come through on that promise, tried to keep the insurance companies in their cut. Gays in the military -- he caved on that one rather than taking the tack that Truman did with integration of the Armed Forces. While the Family Medical Leave Act was positive, it did nothing for low-wage workers who can't afford to leave work. The expansion of low-income tax credits and raising of the minimum wage were positive, but did not go nearly enough -- and hardly constitute some lasting legacy. OTOH, we can also look at NAFTA (disastrous for the working class), the 1996 Telecom reform (giveaway to broadcasters), the 1995 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (precursor to the Patriot Act), Welfare "reform" (which is now proving catastrophic to those subjected to it). While Bill Clinton's presidency was certainly a reprieve from the policies of the Reagan / Bush I era, it was hardly a leap forward. I'd classify it more as a strategic retreat, largely defined by the advancement of slightly softened Republican policies rather than the championing of any great initiatives of his own. And I'd attribute his success to an uncanny political acumen and the fact that he literally dripped with charisma than anything to do with the policies he put forward.

Furthermore, Clinton had the good fortune of being in office at the time of a technological boom -- the taking-off of the internet and the dot-com boom. Largely, the benefits from this economic boom accrued to the top 20% of wealth-holders in the country -- it was only after the boom had sustained for several years that its benefits began to trickle down to the lower income brackets. But when the boom dried up -- it was those same folks in the lower income brackets that bore the majority of the pain.

I'm glad you brought up crime. Why was it, if crime rates plummetted under Clinton (historically a corollary with economic booms) that there were more people locked up in prison on nonviolent drug offenses under Clinton than under Reagan and Bush I COMBINED?

You stick by your claim that the DLC is "pro-people" with some vague generalities and the predictable citing of my stance as "grossly unfair and irresponsible". Yet, I've taken the time to provide you with specific examples to back up my disillusionment. My differences with the "third way" are quite fundamental, and not easily glossed over.

[Sterling]

47. Not really it's people like the DLC's fiasco.

I don't see how DLCers can even show their faces in public any longer givin how they have been wrong on everything repeatedly and givin the repukes more power than they could have hoped for 10 years ago.

[Nicholas_J]

57. Every DLC member is sitting in office

Because they were voted into office and the only ones who are not in office since November were replaced by Republicans not by anti-iraq war Democrats.

Apparently, those voters who replaced the DLC cndidates with Republicans prefered the Republican view of the Iraq war to the the DLC view. Which is even furtther to the rigt than the DLC's. The only mistake the DLC has made is by being less to the right than the overall American electorate.

MOst of the reason that Kerry lost is being attributed to the public viewing Kerry as being less able to handle Iraq as "well" as George Bush has, less able to handle the "Terrorist threat" than George Bush is able to. Simply less agressive and more willing to try to garner interantional support for what is being done in Iraq and about Terroism than George W. Bush is. If they cant show their faces it is because they are still too liberal for the average voter than George Bush is. It would have been wiser to abandon the anti-war whiners, and gone for it. It was the winning strategy. It won the election for Bush.

Had Kerry said screw the U.N. and the international community and tailored his international policy to match those of George Bush's, Kerry's advantage would have been clear. Bush would hav had no advantage on international affairs, along with Kerry's clear advantages on domestic issues would have been the end of the Bush presidency.

As Clinton said to Kerry. support a federal ban on gay marriages and you will have a better chance. Poor Kerry said that he just couldnt do that. He didnt feel comfortable with that sort of denial of equal to a minority.

Oh by the way, that is the DLC sticking to its guns on both states rights and rights for gays as equal citizens in the U.S.

We notice that Bush is now attempting to do what Kerry said he would do, engage Canada and Europe, but Bush is using the stick with no carrot and getting little result. THe Canadians have been fairly clear in what they will do regarding Iraq. regarless of Bush's little jokes about thanking the people who waved at him with five fingers, and his insistance that his Iraq policy was correct. As the next four years go by, watch George try to accomplish what Kerry said he was going to do, adn fail because he is going to do it in the Bush Fashion. Arrogantly and withouyt making concessions.

There is not a single m,ember of the DLC who was not elected to office and who has notvretained office exactly because they are following the policies set up and argeed on by the DLC.

Have the DLc respond as this tiny minority insists, and watch the Republican majority in Congress grow, and grow and grow.

The Demographic makeup of the electorate is moving more and more to the right, and the party that does not respond to the desires and makeup of that electorate will simply disappear.

That is a fact and it was proven in this election. Every attempt to stay away from that center was an added benefit for Bush.

The values voters made that perfectly clear. Those who voted agfainst Kerry because of misconceptions about Iraq, WMD's, and Terrorism also make that clear. There is a very good reason that these voters beleive those misconceptions regardless of all of the evidence that they were false.

it is because they wanted to beleive them. They were totally convinced of it in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

From the start, there were relatively few undecided voters. A far smaller percentage than in any prior election. It is an axiom of Social Psychology that the only people you can convince to change their minds are those who havnt made it up yet.

Any sign of weakeness, not only only in a candidate but in the party itself will lose the election. Bush supporters did not oppose their party, At all. Ever. Too many Democrats put cracks into the foundation of the party itself. And deciding to take a position that is obviously contrary to the opinions and beliefs of the majority of voters is the surest way to lose an election.

In order to win in 2006 and 2008 the DLC is going to have to move even firtther towards the center, in international affairs. while suppoting more middle class tax cuts, and firmly take afdvantage of a ballooning deficit.

Start talking about getting out of Iraq and the Republicans will win even bigger.

[Buck Rabbit]

51. The US cannot withdraw? What if the elected government tells

us to leave? Ayat Allah Al-Sistani thinks his party will win the Jan 20th elections, the first step in establishing an Iranian style Shia dominated government. The only way his forces won't win will be massive fraud by the US and its puppet regime. If that happens the insurgency of Al-Sadr will be childs play compared to what Sistani can muster.

Once Sistani gains power, he will use the US Army to do his bidding and if they don't he will ask them to leave. So is your position to "fix the election" or ignore its results, or act as his agent until he suppresses the Sunnis then throw us out once he is done with us.

You can't turn a cluster fuck into a romantic date.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. I'll call the DLC what it is:

A fifth column of warmongering toadies and neoliberals who delight in frustrating any credible alternative that might arise within the Democratic Party to challenge the bipartisan imperial consensus.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Sadly, the bipartisan imperial consensus is cast in stone at this point

Both parties have enthusiastically, for the most part, taken up the mantle of American exceptionalism. We're past the point of returning to the ideals of Jeffersonian Republicanism and the pursuit of an egalitarian nation consumed with the pursuit of ideas over material wealth. Now, the vast majority of Americans have breathed deep of the vapors of imperialism, and have been intoxicated by them.

The only way out of this current cycle that I can see is the decline of the United States. We won't abandon it willingly -- we will only abandon this path when we can no longer afford to do so, and our position in the world has been vastly diminished. Of course, I also believe that this will occur within the next 10-15 years -- 20 at the most. That is, if the likes of Chalmers Johnson, Kevin Phillips and Emmanuel Todd are to be believed....

Buckle up, friend -- it's going to be a bumpy ride! :scared:

[Darranar]

34. Fighting for "security" isn't a justification for terrorism, either...

something often forgotten.

[Sterling]

49. Something about for every action an equal but oposite reaction.

?

[quiet.american]

8. So....

QUOTE: "...terrorist acts against noncombatants cannot be justified by the exigencies of a military occupation."
======================================================

Hello, DLC, so doesn't it work both ways? How many mass graves filled with noncombatants have we created in Iraq through Bush's War on Terrrr?

Where are the offices of the DLC? We should march on them.

[Robbien]

23. DLCers do not like Progressives and Progressives do not like the DLC

Since the DLCers suck at winning elections, I expect DLCers are getting scared they will get tossed aside while someone else has a go at it.

[ElectroPrincess]

26. I agree with your comment Robbien ...

Concise and Accurate. Kudos. I love it when we don't get the "detailed psychoanalysis" of the problem ... just a clear statement of fact.

"DLCers do not like Progressives and Progressives do not like the DLC"

p.s. ok ok I'm getting close to a proud level of a 1000 posts <blush> ... but I do also agree with Robbien. ;)

[MisterP]

33. that assumes that power is based on merit:

with (R)s and corporations feeding $ and influence into the DLC, the good-cop routine can continue indefinitely.
Only in America can people argue that admitting Trojan Horses is necessary for survival...

[Robbien]

39. The DLC Trojan Horse has done the damage it was meant to do

The DLC was intentially set up to make Progressives in the Democratic party non-entities, all the while making sure the power of the nation remains in corporate Republican hands.

[Minstrel Boy]

42. Sadly true.

And so sad so many can't see it. Looks pretty transparent from here.

[liberalpragmatist]

28. If they kill civilians, they're terrorists. If they kill soldiers, no.

They need to aggressively condemn ALL violence directed at civilians. Now, in wartime, even with the best intentions, civilians will die. It's a sad truth - and it's another major reason why war should never be undertaken unless it's truly for the greater good and absolutely necessary. But violence that is DIRECTED towards civilians IS TERRORISM. Sorry.

For that matter, I think Israel's actions in the West Bank often (though not always) constitute state-terror. I understand that they often have to respond militarily and some civilians will die in any military intervention, but their techniques are heavy-handed and show a callous disregard for Palestinian life.

Where I do agree with you is that insurgents who conduct violence against soldiers are NOT terrorists - that's war. As for the settlers, that's an interesting situation. I think attacking settler children is morally-indefensible, but attacking settlers who confront the Palestinians or take Palestinian land I don't think qualifies as terrorism.

[Darranar]

31. "noncombatants", it says. Armed resistance through...

the targeting of soldiers - combatants - is not included, officially at least.

Perfectly reasonable, yet rather hypocritical, considering the US and Israeli record when it comes to protecting noncombatants.