Will Marshall of the DLC says Progressives are ruining the party with

[Robbien]

our anti-Americanism and lack of real patriotism.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

And the DLCers keep right on posting thread after thread here demanding Progressives support the DLC for the good of the party.

Low down dirty b*stards, all of them.

[liveoaktx]

1. Feck him... I'm against some POLICIES of this administration

BECAUSE I love my country and what the constitution stands for. I will NEVER vote for a DLC candidate.

[Teaser]

2. You are distorting his statement.

I'm no fan of the DLC, but he doesn't say what you say he did. That's a rotten debating tactic.

[liveoaktx]

6. BS-what he said

The right answer to GOP jingoism, however, cannot be left-wing anti-Americanism. Of course, progressives can criticize their country and still be patriotic. Indeed, one of the highest forms of patriotism is being honest about your country's flaws and taking responsibility for fixing them. But it is what's in your heart that counts. Are your objections rooted in a warm and generous affection for your country, or in a curdled contempt for it? Too many Americans aren't sure if the left is emotionally on America's side. And that's a big problem for Democrats.

The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power.

***
By his equating GOP jingoism with "left-wing anti-Americanism" and then going on to say that the left has an unease with patriotism is misleading and an attack on the left. I consider myself on the left, am patriotic and the only unease I have is with the DLC's war-mongering stance-if there's a question about patriotism, it's because many try to hijack it into a one-sided, blind flag-waving support for any action in the name of "love of country".

[eridani]

37. WTF??? "Narrative"????

You mean the problem is the story of massive slaughter of people in poor countries, and a pre-emptive unnecessary war, and not the actual deeds?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. "The left's unease with patriotism is rooted.." And , rightfully so.

By 1965, I no longer considered myself a "patriot". 4 years in the marines, the civil rights movement, and the "patriotic" venture in SE Asia had cured me of that hypocrisy.

"Patriotism is the most foolish of passions, and the passion of fools." Schopenhauer

"Patriotism is the egg from which wars are born." De Maupassant

[Robbien]

14. I do not believe it is a distortion

These are the words:

The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force.

When Americans ponder such questions today, their frame of reference is not the Vietnam War, but Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks evoked the most powerful upsurge in patriotic feeling since Pearl Harbor, and thrust national security back into the center of American politics. Democrats have yet to come to grips with this new reality. More than anything else, they need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization.

It all the Progressives unpatriotic fault.

The DLC sounds just like a RNC talking point memo.

[ladjf]

35. That lame DLC crap ;is going to get us killed. Why should

we pussyfoot around with the Country is being run by thugs? Should be be polite about it or pretend it isn't happening?

[leesa]

49. Because they are making money, that's why.

It's good bidness invading countries and stealing their stuff.

[journalist3072]

18. I agree........

His comments were taken out of context.

I think all he was saying is that the Democratic Party needs to re-define patriotism.

And he's absolutely right.

For FAR too long, the Democrats have let the Republicans define patriotism, and cast us as the unpatriotic ones. And we have let them get away with this. We let one of our very own, a multiple amputee from the Vietnam war, lose an election because he was compared by the Repugs with Osama bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein.

We need to re-define patriotism.

[JHB]

42. If that's what he's saying, how come he can't manage to say it...

...without resorting to the standard RW caricature of "the Left".

My politically formative years were not marked by Vietnam, they were formed by endless capitulations to conservative ideologues and their abuses of power, and the splintering of Democratic unity due to the system of financing campaigns that evolved in the 70's.

These things can be addressed in a unified matter, but that's not what we have here. If you piss on me and tell me it's all part of "unity", don't complain about the bite marks.

[marions ghost]

48. yeah but

haven't you noticed, moderate Republicans and people with half a brain are now realizing where overzealous patriotism has gotten us--ie. into another quagmire war based on lies. And so now is the time to "re-define patriotism" ?!? :crazy:
The people are NOT stupid--they will see that as a tired ploy.

Actually I think we should stay away from the word Patriotism like the plague--esp since the Neo-Cons no longer own it. We don't have to worry about wrestling the football back. It's time to be real, not try to win people over by questioning anybody's "patriotism'--that's suddenly seems so disingenuous...so 2004. Only the rabid hardcore would defend the Swift Boat liars now. The people have moved on...maybe the leaders will eventually GET that.

Forget the guilt trip -- "we have let" Republicans define patriotism..."we have let" Max Cleland lose an election ... we HAVE NOT LET THEM -- they have stolen by lying and various more criminal means. We liberals who know what we stand for have not LET anyone do anything to us, and we are in there fighting now.

So let's ALL get off the "I'm more patriotic than thou" HIGH HORSE.
It's divisive.

[JAbuchan08]

3. The DLC needs to remember where they get their votes from

You can't treat half the party like they don't exist and then demand they vote for you. They aren't railing against against extremist liberals they're railing against their grassroots base grow the fuck up Mr. Marshall.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[erinlough]

34. You've done the deep breathing until we are

losing our country by breaths. No one likes your candidates because they stay so in the middle that they seem to stand for nothing at all. If you don't know what you believe by now I don't know when you will. I have always thought of my self as just left of center, but the last 4 years have made even me seem far left.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Ok as much as I hate Rick Santorum

at least he is willing to tell Aaron brown that Roe was wrong... DLCer, on the other hand, put their wet finger up to see what direction the wind is blowing

They are not willing to stand for anything. This is what people tell you over and over and over and over and over and over again. Did I write that seven times?

The point is, we are tried of wishy washy and we are tired of cow towing to the extreme right wing. I am done, if the candidate is a DLCer it is no better than a Republcian... and I will vote for the green

Got the message now? Go to the other party... we don't want you any more, you are moderate Republicans you are not middle of the roaders, but REPUBLICANS who have infiltrated the party. You are NOT Moderates, you are not middle raoders, you are part of the problem.

[JAbuchan08]

58. I'm not an extremist I just don't see anything wrong with vocal criticism

Sure let's be patriotic, but lets not give up our right to be critical as well. You don't even know my positions on the hot-button issues of the day, but you call me an extremist because I reserve the right to be critical of this administration without the (un)due respect they demand for "civility" and "patriotism."

Fucking frankly I'm pretty centrist. You might think I'm an extremist, but I would just like the DLC and the party "centrists" to realize that open and honest government is not a partisan issue. I'm sure in their minds its only the party "leftists" that are willing to call Bush on his faux patriontism, but if that were true there are more "leftists" in the Democratic party then "centrists." The DLC might be considered the median point of the democratic party, but it is certainly neither the median or mode of our party.

[Walt Starr]

4. Hey hey, ho ho, DLC has got to go. n/t

[Cleita]

5. I don't understand why they don't start their own

conservative party. Now that the Republican Party has become a rogue organization, and unfit to be called American, patriotic conservatives needs some place to go. Fer Chrissakes, leave us tree hugging, socialist progressives alone to pursue what politics we think are right without them trying to make us into them.

[acmejack]

9. The can be the Democratic Corporatist Party

Also known as the "we're not with Dean" party.

[Robbien]

30. They need an established political party and they need voters

Notice that DLCers are a minority, both here and in the liberal blogdom. They have almost no voters so hide behind the Democratic label to get votes and dollars.

People who believe as the DLC does, vote RNC.

[me b zola]

40. "People who believe as the DLC does, vote RNC."

That is exactly right! My hubbie is a former repug & he loves Dean.

It's called leadership, and the only place the dlc is leading us is into a single party system.

[5thGenDemocrat]

7. So I took the time to actually read his commentary

What a load of crap. He sounds to me like a sycophantic Bush-lite bootlicker. If that's a preview of the Dem platform in '08, I'll pass.
John
Why is it that those calling the loudest for "Democratic unity" are the ones who sound the most like Republicans?

[bpilgrim]

8. that's the reTHUG lite motto

these days, but i say we claim the wide MIDDLE by sticking up for them and letting their voice & issues matter, instead of, MOSTLY, the new dem minority of corp usa.

let them have their minority wing and let it compete freely in the market place of ideas with weTHEpeople... we can't lose :evilgrin:

peace

[sandnsea]

10. He had my interest, for a minute

Until this complete ignorance..

"and Michael Moore Democrats, who rejected, root and branch, the idea of a global fight against terrorism and for democracy."

And that was it for me. That's as stupid a thing to say as anything that has come out of Karl Rove's mouth. Oh wait, that is where I heard that before...

[XemaSab]

11. F*** you back, Will Marshall!

n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

12. The DLC obviously got its feelings hurt

when progressive became very engaged with who would lead the DNC. Is this their "last throes" gesture because now the DLC knows we have really big bucks and can get more?

The 560,000 signatures on the DSM had to give some room for thought to the DLC. Maybe Biden, DiFi, Ford Jr. relayed stories on the copious amounts of intensely focused mail and phone calls regarding their snafu with, The Man, Gov. Dean! Perhaps the smell of all those roses wafting in the halls on their way to the Senator of our hearts, Barbara Boxer. Per chance the downloaded videos that show what we are paying attention to has permeated some strategists thick skull, and they realize we will not be dictated to ever again or told our views are not welcome!

The DLC is not an organization that inspires people but it does inspire corporate money. So when they realize the DLC generates cash not votes, then what? Primary voters seem to be the Left. The DLC may want to make the future overatures a LOT more sincere and lasting!

[wli]

13. the DLC are nothing but AEI/GOP moles

Dump 'em.

[KG]

15. DLC - the number one reason the dem party is totally out of power.

[radio4progressives]

22. Exactly n/t

[Tommymac]

27. But the DLC are IN power either way...

no matter which party wins...they still get their corporate blood money. Slippery bahstuds aren't they...

[Cocoa]

16. Lieberman got his ass kicked in the primaries

and the DLC will look back on his 7th place showing as a high point.

[Al-CIAda]

17. Every month or so you can rely on a DLCer that just HAS to start

their shit...has to attack the left.

[radio4progressives]

19. Will Marshall is the one that taught me all I ever wanted to know about

what the DLC is all about.

And if it's true that the DLC cabal (as it appears to me to be at the time of this writing) is so damn arrogant as to actually *believe* that THEY have some sort of imperical right AND *authority* to be ordained to define what the party stands for - they OUGHT to have quite another thing coming.

And the RANK AND FILE should gd stand up to these bastards and give 'em hell for taking this party so far to the right that it's practically joined at the hip specifically with the fascists within the republican party.

If the rank and file roll over on this one - that's it - it's THIRD party movement, because it is the CLINTON administration that laid the foundation to the fascism in power today.

If people don't understand it by now - there's no hope whatsoever.

In relcaiming our democracy, taking back America means to ME, of abolishing CORPORATE PERSONHOOD among several other fundemental principles of a true democracy, that the Dems and the Reeps together dumped decades ago.

Many in the Democratic Party understand this and are very very very passionate about rebuilding our party from the grassroots up.

We don't need no stinking Professional ELECTION LOSERS and we don't need no spineless mealy mouthed Neo Con boot lickers either.

We need honest to pete fighters in the party, and the rank and file need to be able to pick our own leaders through a genuine democratic process, such as proportional representation or any future "Democratic Party" elections victory will be essentially meaningless.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

24. Take a wrong turn asshat?

Why do you hate america?

Oh, and have you enlisted yet, Chickenhawk?

RL

[Individualist]

25. Spoken just like a Christian conservative

Nice values, Gomer.

WWJD?

[liberaltrucker]

32. Well, bust my britches

A freeper in our midst. :spank:

[Zorra]

21. Marshall is a neo-con lite chickenhawk. Right-web info:

The New Democrats insist on the urgency of establishing a "third way" that steers a middle course between "peaceniks" like Dennis Kucinich and "warlords" like Donald Rumsfeld. But when it comes to issues of national security their new progressive internationalism seems like a reconstitution of the old cold war logic. Marshall, for example, sees the war in Iraq as a counterinsurgency campaign that must combine the heavy deployment of U.S. troops with a commitment to winning hearts and minds. Citing neocon analysts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Marshall comes clean: "The escalating violence prompted facile and mostly misleading analogies between Iraq and Vietnam. But in one respect, the comparison is apt: The United States is once again waging a classic counterinsurgency campaign in a country whose culture seems worlds apart from ours. Like it or not, America is back in the business of winning hearts and minds." In his certitude that the same old wars need to be fought again as part of the "third way," Marshall dismisses the unpleasant reality that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not agree that the United States has to fight, "like it or not," a new array of counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East. (6)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

[Peace Patriot]

23. DLC = Democratic Lunatic Council

DLC = Democratic Lowlife Council

DLC = Democratic Lamebrain Council

DLC = Democratic Lucifers Council

Vichy. That's what they are. Fascist ass-kissers. I can't think of an "L" word that fully expresses the contempt that they deserve.

[mod mom]

26. DLC=DEMS (who) LOVE CORPORATIONS nt

[JHB]

43. Personally, I go with...

...Democratic Losership Committee.

[Tinoire]

45. "Democrats for the Leisure Class" per Jesse Jackson n/t

;)

[Q]

28. The left isn't anti-war...

...it's anti-'preemptive' war...where our troops are unnecessarily sent to fight and die for a lie.

Democrats that still support the Iraq slaughter...despite knowing all the facts...are traitors that honor power and cash over humanity.

[brentspeak]

29. One thing is certain

If it is indeed true that "only 51 percent of Democrats trust their party more than Republicans on "maintaining a strong military," then something is really wrong. Despite the DLC's faults, that's one thing that can't be blamed on it.

[Q]

31. Yes...something is really wrong...

...and it's call the Corporate Media and sellout traitorous Democrats.

What does a strong military have to do with illegal wars?

It's telling that the DLC can't admit that Bush LIED this nation into an illegal war or that war crimes are still being committed to this day. They're attacking the 'left' because we know they're complicit.

[flaminbats]

36. ohhh please Will, dooo permit me to kiss your golden ass!!

Those damned Michael Moore Democrats..please ohhh please don't lump me into this category, I'll even wear tons of makeup like Tony Blair if it really helps!!! I only watched 9/11 once, although most of us in theater were working class, I promise..:cry: ;(

I really do agree that Democrats fall into those two categories, and Willy you are all so smart!! I want to imprison all anti-American Michael Moore Democrats, and then I only wish to humbly agree that "President Bush succeeded in transforming the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism into questions of basic values and American national identity."

And Bush is soooo right, and you are toooo! Please willy, I love you and Bush so much more than myself, ohh do believe me! Don't think for a moment that I want anything in return for my taxes, all I want is to kiss your unwrinkled feet..and unquestionly obey our government. ALL that damned flag burning is just another form of terrorism!

This is a good war, 9/11 was never the Commander-in-Chief's fault..it was Michael Moore's fault and Clinton's!! Screw them both, and please no higher taxes because of the war. Indeed, Kerry really was such a snotty loser. Jesus even knows this is asskicking time, so time to open the Muslim concentration camps. Make every damned Muslim confess to treason, hell..time to bring in the IRA and have them bomb those Iraqi sneaks..all in the name of America, our saintly and antihippish Electoral College, Christ, and NEW DLC patriotic values....:yourock:

[derby378]

38. "Fuck the DLC"

Fuck the DLC
They wrecked our party system
They don't give a damn 'cause they're
Career politicians
They trashed Howard Dean
They cost Kerry the election
It's time we kick them out and
Take the Dems in new directions

BAYH and TAUSCHER - time to clean your fuckin' desks
LIEBERMAN and LANDRIEU - selling out has made you lame
HILLARY and BYRON - last chance to jump the ship
So CONYERS and BOXER can live in peace without these dicks

(Sung to the tune of Fuck the Middle East by S.O.D. Sing it in the car, in the shower, at your next Democratic Party meeting, or anywhere you feel like singing!)

[mattclearing]

41. Will Marshall knows nothing of patriotism.

Otherwise he'd support our right to speak out on issues that concern us.

There's nothing patriotic about telling people their constitutionally-protected speech is ruining anything.

Progressives pay taxes, volunteer for military service, vote, contribute to their favorite causes, and actually attempt to counteract the extremism of the right wing. A novel concept, that.

Will Marshall can STFU, and so can all the other patriotism drum beaters.

[marions ghost]

44. Patriotism-yada yada

How could anyone feel they "own" this concept after it was so blatantly distorted to bring us the disastrous occupation of Iraq? Patriotism => extreme nationalism => jingoism => insane pre-emptive "wars." NO WONDER (quoting Marshall) "upscale white liberals seem torn about the meaning of patriotism..."

These recent statements by Will Marshall are so schizophrenic it makes me wonder about his sanity. I guess he has to justify that deep commitment the DLC made to this immoral war while pandering to corporate interests. Caught between a rock and a hard place now, he trots out this offensive plan to win the 'ideological struggle' by further dividing the various factions of the Democratic party. Obviously he is perfectly willing to sacrifice the (quote) 'Michael Moore Democrats,' as he believes that his constituency of Dem Lites is the base. Marshall knows damn well that if Kerry was president now, our rightful president would be thanking Michael Moore. Marshall is too smart to be spouting this BS. Scattered in this writing are criticisms of Bushco failures we'd all agree with. But his ideas about how to overcome the schisms within the Dems are reactionary, uncreative, and just plain ridiculous at this point.

About Vietnam. Weren't the opponents and protestors ultimately found to be CORRECT? There was no domino theory, just like there are no WMD. And similarly there was an Orwellian perversion of the concept of "patriotism" at that time, used to sell the war. John Kerry was a TRUE patriot then--he went there, he saw how bad it was, and he had the guts to come back and speak the truth publicly. And so Marshall advocates we should have more recruiting on college campuses, so we can get more Liberals supporting wars like Iraq? Universities happen to be places where more people see the perversions of "Patriotism"--especially because of Vietnam--but also now because of Iraq. What a lame idea.

Marshall's words about how to handle the war on the homefront seem so passe. So removed from reality. Like maybe Willy's been in a cave himself, somewhere east of Tora Bora.

Let's show Willy a *new* definition of Patriotism. :patriot:

[MadHound]

46. Hell, I'd rather be ruining the party

And doing my best to stop this illegal, immoral war, than sucking Bushco's ass, supporting the genocide of Iraqi people, and laying waste to a whole country in order to steal its oil. FUCK THE DLC, ITS SYNCOPHANTS, AND ENABLERS.

And the DLC/Democratic Party wonders why they are losing the Democratic/left wing of the Democratic Party:eyes:

[fujiyama]

47. Tony Blair Democrats? European wing of the Democratic Party?

Looks like the DLC is spewing RW talking points on Iraq - more BS propaganda from OUR OWN PARTY!:

"As they catalogue the administration's many mistakes, Democrats should also attend to the other side of the balance sheet. That side shows that our forces and their allies have toppled one of the world's most odious tyrants; upheld the principle of collective security; liberated a nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq's hopeful experiment in representative self-government; and changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict."


Just when I thought Marshall couldn't get any more stupid. The part that likely digusts me most is his account of the Boston man that had his kid enlist in the military. Marshal goes on self righeously about right "elite" liberals' attitudes, but doesn't mention the rich repuke chickenhawks - HEY MARSHAL YOU FUCKTARD, RICH REPUKES ARE SENDING THE BOYS TO WAR! GET IT STRAIGHT ASS HOLE!

[CWebster]

50. yep, I suppose Hillary's calls for unity is just that

She just wants our votes.

[geek tragedy]

51. The DLC represents the "house" Democrats on the Republican plantation.

Hopefully Hillary can reform those jellyfish, but I doubt it.

[kentuck]

52. What's his idea of "real patriotism"...?

Supporting the war in Iraq? Because that is "supporting our troops"? Yes, support them until there are 50,000 of them dead then we decide it was all a mistake? So you have to support Bush and Cheney and their policies or you are 'anti-American'?

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Marshall is full of baloney (as usual)

After criticizing the right wing version of patriotism that questions the loyalty of any American who challenges their world view and the deeds they commit informed by that view, Marshall engages in the very same thing by smearing progressives who challenge his world view and the deeds that he supports because they are informed by them.

The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force.

Reading this paragraph, one would think that liberals and progressives just don't love America. That is absurd.

Patriotism can be a very loaded word, and Marshall is guilty of loading it. It can mean many different things; there are many different kinds of patriotism. What kind of patriotism do liberals and progressives reject? Actually, the very same kind that makes Marshall squirm. If that is the kind of patriotism read into the remark by Gitlin quoted by Marshall, then Marshall should find nothing wrong with this statement.

A rational critique of US foreign policy based on a world view that rejects imperialism in all its forms is not unpatriotic. It doesn't necessarily embrace the kind of US intervention anywhere there is a remote threat to US goals that Marshall embraces. Even in a world where the US can rightly be characterized as a hyperpower, there are limits to what military intervention can accomplish. Just as we learned this lesson harshly in Vietnam during the Cold War, so are learning this same hard lesson now in Iraq.

US intervention in Vietnam and Iraq were based on the same arrogant view that what everybody in either Vietnam then or Iraq now really wanted to be was an American. It would appear to me, as one of those liberal/progressive critics of US foreign policy that Marshall disparages, that what Vietnamese wanted then and what Iraqis want now is control of their own national destiny without any foreign interference. They would like a government in place that doesn't need foreign troops to keep it in power and control over their own economic resources. They are perfectly reasonable demands for the people of one nation to make to the government of another. It doesn't cut the mustard for the US to come back and say, "fine, as long as you allow our military bases on your soil or sell your resources to our private businesses cheap." It simply is not up to the US to tell the Vietnamese or the Iraqis how to run their country.

Should the US face an immanent threat from a foreign power, the US has every right to deal with that threat, by force if necessary. However, no reasonable person can say that the US faced any such threat from Vietnam in 1964 (or 1955 after the fall of Dienbienphu, for that matter) or from Iraq in 2003.

The US presence in Vietnam then and the occupation of Iraq now have been met with resistance. This was predictable. Just as US intervention in Vietnam resulted in a quagmire, so too has the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. American troops are being killed in a conflict for which there is neither an easy way out nor a clear way to win short of mass murder.

This is not a situation that a patriotic American would wish to find his country. Yet it is the situation we have found ourselves by following the advice of interventionists, either from the Will Marshall/Tom Friedman camp or the neoconservative camp. Americans faced a threat from terrorists based in South Asia; that threat could have and should have been dealt with in a way that did not involve an unnecessary invasion of Iraq or any other state.

Does this mean that liberal interventionists like Marshall or neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz were the ones who were, in fact, unpatriotic? Not necessarily; it just means they were wrong. For now, we can drop it at that.

The idea that the left, or any one for that matter, adheres to a world view that is inherently unpatriotic because it differers from the world view of another is horsepucky. The question is: What is the correct action to take in a given situation? In a democratic society, the decision comes after open discussion in which people of any and all political persuasions are free to speak their minds without fear of reprisal from those who disagree. In some situations, the interventionists may be right; in the two situations in which have been discussed here, Vietnam and Iraq, they were not.

Mr. Marshall is free to question the general wisdom of liberals and progressives. That is is right, just as it is the right of any liberal or progressive to question his wisdom. However, to question the patriotism of liberals and progressives is beyond the pale and just an attempt to stifle dissent. That is harmful to democracy.

[Mojorabbit]

54. Digby spanked him thoroughly on his blog

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_digbysblog_archive.html#112234091166247628
One of the best replies to the DLC I have seen yet.

[Robbien]

55. Yes! "Marshall suggests that we not make such a big deal out torture."

Marshall:

"...the revelation that some U.S. troops aren't saints should not come as too great a shock, at least to grownups. By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility."


and Digby's great response


(Yeah, it's the liberals who are ignoring the barbaric insurgency in Iraq. And here the last I heard they were in their last throes.)

Let's just say I'm a big believer in supporting the troops --- troops like Spc. Joseph Darby, for instance, who had the courage and patriotism to stand up and say something when his fellow troopers were committing reprehensible acts --- or the FBI agents who complained on the record about what they saw at Guantanamo. I will never excuse the United States using torture or abuse or holding prisoners indefinitely without due process. Never. No matter what the "barbaric insurgency" does in Iraq. And I am more than willing to throw down the gauntlet on this and say that anyone who soft peddles those things is the worst kind of anti-American there is. We're not going to find common ground on this subject. If that kicks me out of the big tent so be it. I'm not signing on to that shit, ever.

[SaveElmer]

57. The article says nothing of the sort!

I'm not going to recount what it actually says because you know full well what it says...you are distorting it to make some cheap republican like jab. You oughtta be ashamed..