"Choose Your Neo-Con Poison" - The very latest from the DLC

[Tinoire]

Well...! No wonder the DLC's advice to Kerry was "shaft the Left" ((see very end)). No wonder no antiwar banners at the convention. No wonder Medea Benjamin dragged off the convention floor and antiwar protestors penned up in a "speech-free zone". No wonder. And now the DLC is fighting for its domination of the Democratic Party because they full well know they do NOT represent the majority of us and that Democrats are ANGRY.

October 31, 2004

“We're not going to beat George Bush by being Bush Lite. The way to beat George Bush is to give the 50% of Americans who quit voting because they can't tell the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party — give them a reason to vote again.”

-- Howard Dean


(snip)

The DLC promotes a philosophy they call “progressive internationalism” -- a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war, the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush’s march to war. Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC’s think tank, led the charge. In an article titled ‘Making the Case On Iraq’, he laid out the “progressive internationalist” position on the war.

“For starters, Democrats need to resist the argument that only the discovery of new evidence against Saddam -- the acquisition of nuclear weapons or clear involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism -- would justify action against the dictator. That reasoning implies that a statute of limitations has expired on Saddam's long catalogue of past crimes. What we already know is bad enough: Saddam is a serial aggressor -- he's attacked no fewer than four neighboring countries -- and an implacable enemy of the United States who is desperately seeking nuclear weapons to complement his deadly arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. Democrats should make it clear to the public that the status quo is intolerable, that the old policy of containing Saddam has failed, and that leaving him free to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk that neither we nor or the civilized world can afford to take.”

Marshall’s article was published in Blueprint Magazine -- a plagiarized edition of Commentary. Now you would think that these “progressive internationalists” would be chastened by the turn of events in Iraq. But Marshall not only remains an adamant supporter of the war; he is now a militant proponent of escalation.

Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on January 8, 2004] ((PPI: Stay and Win in Iraq by Will Marshall)).

“What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies. But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet the timing of the administration's troop cuts seems dictated by the campaign calendar, not strategy.”

Notice that Will Marshall never bothers to suggest that Iraq was part of the “war on terror.” Even though he repeats the neo-con’s outlandish claims about Saddam’s non-existent WMDs, he makes it clear that the DLC didn’t need illicit weapons or an Al-Qaida link to justify a “pre-emptive” war against an emaciated Iraqi army. Like other DLC fellow travelers, Marshall was certainly aware that Saddam Hussein was fully contained. But he couldn’t resist the urge to indulge in a little bit of old fashioned imperialism and tinker with ‘regime change’ to transform the “Greater Middle East.”

Now that his neo-con wet dreams have resulted in a tenacious native insurgency against the foreign occupation forces, Marshall proposes to up the ante. Instead of taking pause and reflecting on how much blood and treasure have already been squandered at the neo-con roulette table, he suggests we ignite other fires in the region. For Marshall, “the job starts in Iraq.” When and where does it end? That’s for the neo-cons to know and the rest of the world to find out.

Like the Bush administration, the DLC and Marshall still subscribe to the idiotic notion that Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists are at the core of this insurgency. As the intelligence community has often pointed out, very few ‘foreigners’ have been found among rebels arrested by the Anglo-American occupation forces. Besides, Iraq was home to millions of immigrants from other Arab countries. They are the Iraqi equivalent of permanent residents -- very much like the Green Card holders in the US military who serve their country without the benefit of citizenship. As a fully integrated part of the population, it is not surprising that some of these Arab ‘foreigners’ have joined the Iraqi resistance. Moreover, the insurgents are hardly Saddam loyalists. While they have often demanded the release of Iraqi prisoners -- they have never once bothered to ask for Saddam Hussein. And one suspects that the deposed president would fight extradition to Fallujah or Najaf. The only part of Saddam the insurgents might want is his head.

(snip)

The DLC’s web site also promotes the foul produce of Bernard Lewis, a rabid anti-Arab racist who was convicted in French courts of intellectual dishonesty on account of his denial of the Armenian Holocaust. Incidentally, Lewis has also served as a private part-time personal tutor for Dick and Lynn Cheney to bring them up to speed on the “dysfunctional Arab mindset.”

(snip)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Amr1031-2.htm

Blueprint, a magazine single-handedly financed by Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications and DLC Board of Trustees, can be found here: www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250855&kaid=132&subid=193 (2002)

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132 (current)

===

Will Marshall's latest offering begins like this:

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | January 8, 2004
Stay and Win in Iraq
By Will Marshall


Are Dennis Kucinich and Donald Rumsfeld secret allies? You'd think the Democrats' most vocal peacenik and the GOP warlord would have little in common, but both seem to be in a hurry to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Even with Saddam Hussein in the bag and awaiting trial, that's a bad idea.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=450004&subsecID=900021&contentID=252289


===

Shaft the Left

John Kerry is doing exactly what he should be doing right now. He is in a post-primary molting season. He's emerging from the shadow of Howard Dean and becoming more like the policy twin of Joe Lieberman: a pro-trade, fiscally conservative centrist Democrat who is willing to pour more troops into Iraq to win the war. . . .
Kerry is absolutely correct to take some time off, retool the message and play the quadrennial game that smart nominees play: Shaft the Left.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000569.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04BROO.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[hang a left]

1. I read this policy a while back.

Sickening isn't it.

[Tinoire]

3. Totally. There is NO EXCUSE for this & I won't have ANY TOLERANCE!

It is time more people understood what the DLC is and how it has infiltrated, taken over the Democratic Party as insiduously as the Christian Right took over the Republican Party.

We're in a heap of trouble.

[htuttle]

2. I can't vote for these positions. Period.

This is not a 'threat'. It is a statement of fact. I will not vote for a candidate that supports these positions.

If these are the positions that the New Democratic Party wants to support, then it hardly matters whether a Republican or Democrat gets elected, as far as I'm concerned. I'll vote Green instead.

I will not vote for fascism -- whether it's 'red fascism' or 'blue fascism' makes absolutely NO difference to me.

[sendero]

17. To use a word I don't generally like...

.... "ditto".

[Edgewater_Joe]

4. Take These M-Fers Down - DEAN FOR DNC CHAIR!

And if Dean doesn't get it, put your money into DFA and MoveOn and just work to seize the friggin' party away from these turkeys in '08.

Enough is enough. They've had their chance. They blew it. Sit down, shut up, get out of the way!

[sendero]

18. And you get ...

.... a "ditto" too.

Enough already.

[CWebster]

5. It is all such a sham-

when you think of all the Middle-Eastern (and international) despots we back when they do our bidding....inclusing Saddam. Allawi ain't nothing more than a thug--and then there was the snake, Chalabi.

What these idiots fail to realize is the thread so many Dems are hanging on by--ABB is no endorsement to rally the party around. But maybe that is the way they want it--no choice at all.

[Tinoire]

7. Gore Vidal was right, there's only 1 party now- corporate party

Gore Vidal: The Erosion of the American Dream

It's Time to Take Action Against Our Wars on the Rest of the World
by GORE VIDAL

This is a transcript of Gore Vidals's March 12 interview on Dateline, SBS TV Australia.

MARK DAVIS: Gore Vidal, welcome to Dateline.

GORE VIDAL: Happy to have crossed the dateline down under.

MARK DAVIS: In the past few years, you have shifted from being a novelist to principally an essayist or, in your own words 'a pamphleteer'. It's almost the reverse of most writers' careers. Why the shift for you?

GORE VIDAL: Why the shift in the United States of America, which has obliged me --since I've spent most of my life marinated in the history of my country and I'm so alarmed by what is happening with our global empire, and our wars against the rest of the world, it is time for me to take political action. And I think anybody who has the position, has a platform, must do so. It's also a family tradition. My grandfather lost his seat in the Senate because he opposed going into the First World War. And he won it back 10 years later on exactly the same set of speeches that he'd lost it. So, attitudes change, attitudes can be changed but, now, I am not terribly optimistic that there is much anyone can do now the machine is set to go. And, to have a major depression going on, economic, really, collapse all round the world and begin a war against an enemy that has done nothing against us other than what our media occasionally alleges, this is lunacy. And I have a hunch --I've been getting quite a bit around the country --most people are beginning to sense it. The poll numbers are not as good as the Bush regime would have us believe. A great...something like 70% really only wants to go into war with United Nations sanction and a new resolution. I would prefer, however, that we use our constitution, which we often ignore, which is --Article 1 Section 8 says, "Only the Congress may declare war. The President has no right to go to war and he is Commander-in-Chief once it starts."


(snip)

MARK DAVIS: Well, Bush has claimed that the American belief in liberty will deliver a free and peaceful Iraq, even with the stench of oil in the air, George Bush probably can deliver that --a free and peaceful Iraq that is. Isn't there a legitimate case to be argued that there's a greater good at work here?

GORE VIDAL: There is no greater good at work. We cannot deliver it. Only the Iraqis can deliver that. You don't go in and smash up a country, which we will do, and gain their love so that they then want to imitate our highly corrupt political system and, on the subject of democracy --I happen to be something of a student of the American constitution --it was set up in order to avoid majority rule. The two things the founding fathers hated were majoritarian rule and monarchy. So they devised a republic in which only a very few white men of property could vote. Then, to make sure that we never had any democracy at work at the highest levels of governance, they created something called the electoral college, which can break any change that might upset them. We saw what happened in November 2000, when Albert Gore won the popular vote by 600,000, he actually won the electoral vote of Florida, but a lot of dismal things happened and denied him the election. So that's what happened there. So for us to talk about a democracy that we are going to translate into other lands is the height of hypocrisy and is simply foolish. We don't invent governments for other people.


(snip)

MARK DAVIS: And yet there's been very little political response to the establishment of those agencies or the very dramatic constitutional changes that have been made in the Patriot Act. We're not really hearing a strong movement, not from the Democrats, not in the media. There is a certain acquiescence.

GORE VIDAL: Well, we don't hear it because they're part of it. You know, we have elections --very expensive ones and very corrupt ones. But we don't have politics. We made a trade-off somewhere. This was after Harry Truman established the national security state, and suddenly television came along and elections cost billions. It cost $3 billion to elect Bush. That's a lot of money. And it was a campaign almost without issues except personalities. Nothing was talked about. Nothing was talked about going to war as quickly as possible, which of course obviously was in his mind. So you have a country that is not political, without political parties. There are movements of people, which go largely unrecorded. There are eloquent voices out there, but you don't see them in print, you don't hear them on the air.

(snip)

GORE VIDAL: Well, nothing repeats itself except human folly, so no. I do feel an energy across the country --this may be because I go to energetic groups --that are fighting their own government, but they're going to lose because the government is now totally militarised and ready for war --a war they can't really sell to the rest of the world, but they're going to do it anyway. This is something new. We've never had a period like this and it was --to somebody like me, who is really hooked into constitutional America --this is incredible. We cannot trust the Supreme Court after their mysterious decisions on the election of 2000. We have no political parties. We've never had much of them --I mean the Democrats, the Republicans. We have one party --we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican. So in the absence of politics, with a media that is easy to manipulate and, in the hands of very few people with interests in wars and oil and so on, I don't see how you get the word out, but one tries because there is nothing else to be done.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal03142003.html

[MsUSA]

35. I hate to say this, but Ralph Nader has been saying this since the

1996 election. Republicrats! Both parties draw from the same corporate well.

[charlie]

6. 5 years ago...

January 1, 2000

Given current trends, Iraq will emerge as the foremost national security albatross around the neck of the next administration. Since the Clinton administration's welcome, if belated, 1998 declaration of "regime change" as a key goal in Iraq, a bold policy aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein from power is urgently called for.

...

But we should go much further. Rather than making frequent pinprick air strikes in the "no fly" zones, we should grasp opportunities to attack Saddam where they will seriously damage his hold on power. With sufficient provocation, we should mount debilitating air strikes on the pillars of the regime: the secret police, Saddam's personal guard units, and the Iraqi command-and-control system. And, given Saddam's record, the provocations will surely come.

U.S. planners need to actively prepare for a window of political opportunity to attack Saddam. There are two plausible scenarios under which he might provoke the United States - and hopefully the Desert Storm coalition - to forcefully intervene with the international community's acceptance. The first would be Saddam's stymying the efforts of a new inspection regime cobbled together by the United Nations Security Council. The second would be Saddam's pursuing some sort of "breakout strategy," using terrorism, conventional military means, or even weapons of mass destruction.

There is, not surprisingly, widespread squeamishness in Washington about such an aggressive new strategy. The reluctance is less a fear of "going in" than a fear of "getting out" - the famous exit strategy issue. Like the man who fretted about what to do with his lottery winnings, such worries are misplaced. The prime objective is to unseat Saddam, and only a lack of U.S. leadership masks the widespread support for such a policy that would emerge among Iraq's neighbors and some of our allies. Indeed, the fear that military action would cause the dismemberment of Iraq, as many argue, fails to recognize that Iraq is slowly disintegrating along ethnic lines precisely because of Saddam's rule.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1326&kaid=450004&subid=900021

[Tinoire]

8. Sickening. Explains the TOTAL silence of the DLC and its apologists

on the obscenity of this war.

A war for empire. A war for corporate America. A war for oil. A war for crazy expansionist fantasies. A war for everything that is NOT in the interests of the American people.

Bush. Blair. Sharon. The Asses of Evil.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

9. 30% of Democrats SUPPORTED the Iraq war

While I wasn't one of them, do you want to have the party declare itself too good for their votes? They agree with mainstream Democrats on other issues, you know.

Oh, and as far as your Shaft the Left quote, people should know that, despite your misleading juxtaposition, it is not something out of the mouth of Will Marshall. In fact, it is none other than David Brooks who makes it.

Tinoire, if you're going to be quoting GOP nutjobs to mischaracterize and denigrate the Democratic party, you could at least add a few more quotes by Ann Coulter to round it off. That way you can be a complete liar as opposed to merely lying by omission.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Capn Sunshine]

11. So you're suggesting we blow off the 70% who ARE against the war?

That's the sort of sound thinking that got the DLC where it is today, a meaningless group of beltway sycophants with no basis in any reality except the pretend one they have painted on the mirrors to assuage their skewed views.

[CWebster]

12. Would they have supported the war

if the Democrats had launched a challenge rather than jumping on board and perpetrating all the Bush administrations lies and deceptions?

Speaking of reality...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

16. What do you mean IF?

Plenty of Democrats "launched a challenge". The vote in the Senate was hardly unanimous. But it didn't matter. Americans, by a large majority, decided they'd rather give the President the benefit of the doubt rather than giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

The U.S. electorate is divided roughly into quarters: 25% Republican, 25% Democrat, 25% Independent, and 25% Don't know and Don't care. When you're working hard to convince a large swathe of your own people to support a policy position, you're playing ball in your own red zone. Your options are very limited.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Democrats like Kerry were also right: when dealing with recalcitrant Dictators, the President should have the authority to threaten war. I find it odd that the Democratic hard left backs President Bush in his assertion that "permission to go to war if you have no other option left" is the same as "permission to go to war without even considering other options".

[CWebster]

23. Actually, it took round the clock fear mongering and

drum beating for months and months with the media as little more than an echo chamber to dispense lies and propaganda. Thus so many Americans were led to connect Saddam with 911. From the Leadership the word went out that there would be no criticism of the president and it was necessary to prop up the illusion so not to appear weak. Reality be damned.

The Republicans framed the debate and the Dems went along because they were advised to. The reality, Sir, was sacrificed along with young men and women who were sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, for a lie, fueled by a Right-wing campaign of kneejerk nationalism.

The voting public shifts constantly--The Democrats OWN the issues which matter in most Americans lives, but instead they made it about appearing tough, allowing the Right to frame the debate--and abandoned the issues which would've held appeal. Instead they simply wrote those issues off in the red and the blue states alike.

The mentality seems to be if we can't beat them, join them - whether the reality reflects it or not is inconsequencial.

As to your grasp of reality, it sounds like doublespeak to me, pronounced a little too loudly while covering your eyes and ears.

[CWebster]

25. And

even under those circumstances, a majority of polled Americans STILL did not support the invasion without an international effort and only after UN inspections.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

31. Which was what the law giving him permission called for...

The problem was that Bush then unilaterally (mis)stated that weapons inspections hadn't worked, that he had consulted with the U.N. (which, he largely didn't), and that he had no option left. Voila! War.

I really don't understand why left-wing Democrats keep trying to beat up centrist and conservative Democrats over Bush's duplicity. You don't see anyone attacking Teddy Kennedy because he voted for the No Child Left Behind act which Bush promptly decided not to fund, do you?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Blue_Tires]

40. "You don't see anyone attacking Teddy Kennedy because he voted for..."

"the No Child Left Behind act which Bush promptly decided not to fund, do you?"

somehow, comparing an ill-concieved education initiative with an illegal invasion based on a network of proven lies doesn't quite even out the scales...as far as i know, NCLB has yet to (directly) kill anyone

[Tinoire]

13. Oh please. "Shaft the Left" is EXACTLY what the DLC did & does.

If you have trouble reading and following links; thankfully, the majority of DUers don't and know exactly how to process information.

Stinks doesn't it when someone provides links for people to read and make up their own minds?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

26. Who has trouble following links?

This is what you linked to:

May 04, 2004
Brooks: Kerry is on track

David Brooks thinks that anxious Democrats should relax:

John Kerry is doing exactly what he should be doing right now. He is in a post-primary molting season. He's emerging from the shadow of Howard Dean and becoming more like the policy twin of Joe Lieberman: a pro-trade, fiscally conservative centrist Democrat who is willing to pour more troops into Iraq to win the war. . . .

Kerry is absolutely correct to take some time off, retool the message and play the quadrennial game that smart nominees play: Shaft the Left.

- - - -

Now I'll admit Tinoire, that I didn't consider the possibility that you yourself were unclear on who you were quoting, so I withdraw any implicit accusation about you lying. You merely lept to an unjustifiable conclusion because it fit your frothing at the mouth hatred of centrist Democrats. Still, if you want to avoid further embarrassment, I'd suggest that you be a little more careful about sourcing your quotes in the future.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s.: Brooks thought it was wonderful that Kerry was "tak(ing) some time off". I think it was a complete mistake that helped the GOP set up their Swift Boat Smear. Of course, you're free to disagree with me on that one too, which I'm sure you will since anything a centrist says mut be, perforce, a GOP-in-Democrat-clothing lie.

[Tinoire]

28. Didn't leap to anything lol. Exposing the DLC.

even if you think it's "frothing at the mouth. lol.

The DLC's entire attitude & gameplan has indeed been "Shaft the Left". A pity you don't recognize that. After months and months at DU, I would have thought that message had come across. Kind of a pity it took a Bush admirer to sum it up in 3 words isn't it?

Shaft the Left he did. And it wasn't at the urging of his Liberal supporters.
==

Distractionary tactic number one... Try to take the thread off on a tangent. Sorry, not interested ;)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

30. I'll just leave you to your pathologies...

Well, no use talking anymore. I think I'll just leave you in your own little world.

You see Kerry as just too conservative to appeal to the majority of Americans. Americans, on the other hand, see Kerry as too liberal. There's a lot of polling data to back that up, but la la la! :crazy: It doesn't matter, because polls are wrong and you are right! :crazy:

The DLC is trying to get Americans to reconnect with the Democratic party, which, among other things, means talking in their language - and distancing themselves from the Blame America First crowd. But no good deed goes unpunished, and because we don't hate the troops (we merely think the President is an idiot), we're now the real enemy :crazy:.

But oh! If only we create a Department of Peace, hundreds of millions of American socialists who haven't been able to tell the difference between the Democratic party and the Republicans, will suddenly come back to the polls again! :crazy:

And, since a Republican Pundit has made another insulting comment toward the Democratic party, it must be true because Republicans never lie or smear :crazy:. (At least, not when talking about our Presidential Nominee :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:).

And now you're going to take over the Democratic party (even though you never actually show up, or do anything other than post anonymous attacks on Democrats in a Democratic website). Oooooooh! That "secretly-GOP" DLC must be shaking in its boots now! :crazy:

So, go ahead, have the last post. I'm sure you'll type "lol" again, even though you're not actually laughing.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. All in all, it's probably a good thing that you don't have a clue about how grassroots Democratic party activism actually works. At least here, your fabrications and divorce from reality are less likely to make independents vote Republican.

[CWebster]

32. I get it!!!!

We should run a Republican because it would guarantee we win!!:crazy:

Babe, what a strategy!

[Tinoire]

33. Lamentable.. babbling about the "Department of Peace" but

Totally lamentable. The DLC supporters inevitably resort to babblying about the "Department of Peace" because the present "Department of War" fits in better with the DLC's philosophy

I guess you can't quite like the concept of a Department of Peace when corporations like

Loral Space and Communications,
TWR
British Petroleum
United Technologies
Raytheon
Koch Industries,

the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy

basically own your ass.

Very frightening. :scared:

But we were warned long ago about the DLC's love affair with corporations that are anathema to the people's interest. It's unfortunate we weren't listening. I know I wasn't paying attention at the time.

August, 2000
Arms Industry Buys Out Democratic Party

(snip)

As the junior Senator from Connecticut, he has been one of the most successful purveyors of military pork in the Congress. Lieberman went to bat for the troubled F-22 combat aircraft--which, at a cost of $200 million per copy, is the most expensive fighter plane ever built--largely because the engines for the plane are built by a Connecticut-based contractor, the Pratt and Whitney unit of United Technologies. Lieberman was also one of the first Senate Democrats to join Thad Cochran and Trent Lott in supporting a costly and unworkable National Missile Defense scheme.

Lieberman’s efforts on behalf of the weapons industry have not gone unrewarded. According to Federal Election Committee data processed by the Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman has received over $96,000 in contributions from defense companies and their employees in the current election cycle. His second largest contributor overall--with $33,000 in total contributions--has been Connecticut-based arms maker United Technologies.

Will the Real Democrats Please Stand Up?

For the past five years, Joseph Lieberman has served as the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, a conservative, pro-military current within the Democratic Party that helped catapult Bill Clinton and Al Gore onto the national political scene in the early 1990s.

(snip)

Meanwhile, the members of the 30-member “Blue Dog” caucus, which include armed services committee members Norman Sisisky of Virginia and Ellen Tauscher of California, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from defense contractors in the past decade. Conscious of this generous support from the weapons manufacturing sector, in the spring of 1999 the vast majority of the members of the caucus--27 of 30--voted in favor of deploying a National Missile Defense (NMD) system “as soon as technologically feasible.”

One of the biggest soft money donors to Democratic Party committees during this cycle has been former Lockheed Martin board member and current CEO of Loral Space Bernard Schwartz, who has lavished over $1.1 million on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic congressional and senatorial committees since 1997.

(snip)

http://baltimorechronicle.com/demarms_sep00.html

William D. Hartung, the President's Fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School, is an expert on the arms trade and military spending, and the author of And Weapons for All (HarperCollins, 1995), a critique of U.S. arms sales policies from the Nixon through Clinton administrations. Mr. Hartung directs the Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center, which provides the media, policymakers, and the public with timely research and information on the issue of global weapons proliferation. His articles on the arms trade and the economics of military spending have appeared in such publications as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, The Nation, Harper's, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the World Policy Journal.
This advisory is part of the Institute’s series of reports, ‘Peddling Arms, Peddling Influence.” To see other reports, see http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms

[Tinoire]

34. Whew! Thanks.

MUCH obliged :)

[FubarFly]

36. It's not often that I thoroughly disagree with a fellow Dem. But...

You see Kerry as just too conservative to appeal to the majority of Americans. Americans, on the other hand, see Kerry as too liberal. There's a lot of polling data to back that up, but la la la! :crazy: It doesn't matter, because polls are wrong and you are right!

Polling data shows that Americans favor universal health care, too. Across the board polling data shows that on many issues, most Americans are far more liberal than the corporate-friendly DLC. Of course Americans don't merely vote on the issues. Character matters. A fact that the shift-whichever-way-the-wind-is-blowing DLC "strategists" never seem to get.

The DLC is trying to get Americans to reconnect with the Democratic party, which, among other things, means talking in their language - and distancing themselves from the Blame America First crowd. But no good deed goes unpunished, and because we don't hate the troops (we merely think the President is an idiot), we're now the real enemy

What you don't see is the corruption implicit in the DLC approach. Relying primarily on corporate contributions means that special interests can buy- without opposition- any favor that they want, regardless of whether it benefits the American people or not. This a fact that the reality based community never addresses. Why is that?

The DLC is trying to get Americans to reconnect with the Democratic party, which, among other things, means talking in their language - and distancing themselves from the Blame America First crowd. But no good deed goes unpunished, and because we don't hate the troops (we merely think the President is an idiot), we're now the real enemy

Blame America when it deserves blame. Are you suggesting that we should ignorantly excuse his faults? The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.

But oh! If only we create a Department of Peace, hundreds of millions of American socialists who haven't been able to tell the difference between the Democratic party and the Republicans, will suddenly come back to the polls again!

Yes. War is much preferable to peace. Shame on any American who wants to make morality a primary principle in our foreign relations. Wanton slaughter and naked imperialism are much preferable.

And, since a Republican Pundit has made another insulting comment toward the Democratic party, it must be true because Republicans never lie or smear.

If that was the only example you may have a point. However, as your reality based self already knows, there have been countless examples of how the DLC has decided to "shaft the left." How convenient that your memory is so short.

And now you're going to take over the Democratic party

Hopefully.

(even though you never actually show up, or do anything other than post anonymous attacks on Democrats in a Democratic website). Oooooooh! That "secretly-GOP" DLC must be shaking in its boots now!

Well that's hardly reality based. Are you being ironic?


So, go ahead, have the last post. I'm sure you'll type "lol" again, even though you're not actually laughing.

lol. ( At least your insightful about something ;-) )

[eridani]

37. Blame "America"?

Just who or whatthefuck is "America" supposed to be? Is "America" a few certifiable psychopaths ("Some call you the elite; I call you my base") who think they can conquer their way out of the peak oil problem with a hard enough boot in the rest of the world's face? Or do the rest of us poor saps who just live here have some claim to the word? Our interests would be served by cutting the imperialist dickwad crap and putting all our resources into developing the energy sources for the next economy. I guess our interests just aren't the "national" interest, for some odd reason.

[Dhalgren]

14. With the DLC and those dim-witted Democrats

who support it we have enough "nutjobs" of our own to quote. And, anyway, there is no huge, discernible difference between a Republican "spokesperson" and a DLC "spokesperson", so you can see how easy it would be to mix up the quotations... And let me tell you, calling Tinoire a "liar" reduces whatever cred you had left to zero, bub...

[Tinoire]

19. Thanks Dhalgren. Have u heard about the new spokesman for the DLC/PPI?

and not just any old plain vanilla Republican but PNAC-signing, Christian Right-pushing neo-cons. One of Ralph Reed's right hand man! Behold the "New Democrat" Party.

Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=190&contentid=1238

DLC Spokespersons:

DLC | Bio | October 1, 2004
Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow, DLC

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Wittman explained his political journey in the October
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=252917

PPI Spokespersons:
Will Marshall, president and co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.

(snip)

Marshall Wittmann, PPI senior fellow.

PPI | Bio | September 22, 2004
Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Wittman explains his political journey in the October, 2004 issue of Blueprint magazine.


http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919

===

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.


Sincerely,

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

==

April 3, 2002


The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.

In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.

No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles -- American principles -- in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

This central truth has important implications for any Middle East peace process. For one spoke of the terrorist network consists of Yasser Arafat and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Although your critics in the United States, Europe and the Arab world suggest that you and your administration bear some responsibility for the lack of political progress between Israel and the Palestinians, they are mistaken. As Secretary of State Powell recently stated, the present crisis stems not from “the absence of a political way forward” but from “terrorism…, terrorism in its rawest form.” That terrorism has been aided, abetted, harbored, and in many instances directed by Mr. Arafat and his top lieutenants. Mr. Arafat has demonstrated time and again that he cannot be part of the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He demonstrated it in July 2000, when he rejected the most generous Israeli peace offer in history; he demonstrated it in September 2000, when he launched the new intifada against Israel; and he demonstrated it again these past two weeks when, despite the hand you offered him through Vice President Cheney, he gave sanction to some of the worst terrorist violence against Israeli citizens.

It is true that the United States has a leading role to play in the Middle East and, potentially, in resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But it is critical that negotiations not be the product of terrorism or conducted under the threat of terrorist attack. This would send a most dangerous signal to our adversaries that civilized states do not have the necessary courage to fight terrorism in all its forms.

Mr. President, it can no longer be the policy of the United States to urge, much less to pressure, Israel to continue negotiating with Arafat, any more than we would be willing to be pressured to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Nor should the United States provide financial support to a Palestinian Authority that acts as a cog in the machine of Middle East terrorism, any more than we would approve of others providing assistance to Al Qaeda.

Instead, the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens. Like our own efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Israel’s task will not be easy. It will not be accomplished quickly or painlessly. But with fortitude, on our part as well on the part of the Israeli people, it can succeed in significantly reducing the risk of future terrorist attacks against Israel and against us. And, in so doing, we will give the Palestinian people a chance they have so far not had under Arafat’s rule -- an opportunity to construct a political culture and government that do not marry their national and religious aspirations with suicide bombers.

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to compromise their fundamental security. As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely,

William Kristol

Ken Adelman Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Ellen Bork Linda Chavez Eliot Cohen Midge Decter

Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin Frank Gaffney

Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan John Lehman Tod Lindberg

Rich Lowry Clifford May Joshua Muravchik Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Daniel Pipes Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Marshall Wittmann

R. James Woolsey
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm


As PNAC SO WELL PUT IT:

But both the Bush and McCain camps are full of conservatives and moderates. Among the conservatives, the difference--between Ralph Reed and Gary Bauer, between South Carolinians Carroll Campbell and Lindsey Graham, between former Reaganites Haley Barbour and Vin Weber, between Heritage Foundation denizens Ed Feulner and Marshall Wittmann--is not ideological. One might say that the difference is "only" temperamental--but the gulf in temperament points to a difference deeper than the details of policy or program.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_034.htm

[Dhalgren]

22. Ugh...

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

[Jose Diablo]

24. Marshall Wittmann

This guy is a Democrat? Who would have thunk it?

[Tinoire]

29. Neo-con DLC/PPI spokesman Called himself a neo-con Kind of says it all!!!

But along the way, Wittman said, he became disenchanted with the “excesses of liberalism, particularly in areas of foreign policy and social policy at home. Like other neo-conservatives, I gravitated to Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party.”

Wittman served in the Department of Health and Human Services in the administration of George H.W. Bush, then was recruited by Rev. Robertson’s Christian Coalition, where he was among the first to talk about the growing evangelical support for the State of Israel...."END SNIP


http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=10110

[jonnyblitz]

10. thanks for posting this Tinoire.

I am so glad you are baaack! :hi:

[Tinoire]

15. Hi Johnnyblitz!

:hi:

Thanks. It's good to be back. And I'm royally back in the fight to retake our party so that it represents the MAJORITY of Democrats ;)

[jonnyblitz]

20. I noticed.

I havent been participating lately, just posting in silly threads in the lounge . I don't have the stomach for battle at present but hope to join in soon. we have a growing DLC apologist contingent to debate with. the more the merrier! :P

[Tinoire]

21. The DLC is in a frenzy - it has realized that people are waking up

and it is not going to go gently into the night, easily or gracefully giving the reins of the Democratic Party back to the majority of old-fashioned, non Third Way Democrats.

[madfloridian]

27. Check your inbox.

:hi:

[Jose Diablo]

38. The DLC is dedicated to making

A kinder, gentler Democratic Party. Thus those mean old Liberals must be excluded from all political influence.

[joanski01]

39. Thank you for this thread, Tinoire.

It has helped me understand what is happening so much better.

[Carolab]

41. Well, DUH. Old news.

Why do you think so many of us followed Dean and HATED having to vote for Kerry?