Two articles about NeoCon movement WITHIN the Democratic Party

[Kevin Spidel]

Would love your thoughts about this. The Third Party movement folks sent this to me this morning.

If you all want to know what I feel about third party movements in the current climate you can read here: http://spidel.net/blog/?p=638

But, these two articles did indeed catch my eye.

From the Los Angeles Times
Neocons in the Democratic Party
Like Kennedy and Truman, Democratic neocons want to beef up the military and won’t run from a fight.
By Jacob Heilbrunn
Jacob Heilbrunn, a former Times editorial writer, is writing a book on neoconservatism.

May 28, 2006

DON’T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls “The Good Fight.”

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called “With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty.” Beinart’s book is subtitled “Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.” Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary...

PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in ‘08
by BooMan
Sun May 28th, 2006 at 08:31:22 PM EST

Robert Kagan is the co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century and he thinks it will be better for America if the Democrats win the 2008 contest for the Presidency. If that surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. As far as the PNAC crew goes, power isn’t about being a Republican or a Democrat, it’s about owning both parties. And, fortunately for us, Kagan is spectacularly upfront about this. To understand his mindset it’s important to understand that he doesn’t divide the world up into left and right, but into interventionist and isolationist. Kagan has representatives in the Democratic Party. They can loosely be described as the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the writers at The New Republic. These opinion leaders consider America to be the ‘indispensable nation’ and they consider it vital to world peace and security that America maintain its role in the world. For example, it’s critical that we maintain military bases from Okinawa, to Tashkent, to Kandahar, to Baku, to Turkey, Baghdad, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, to Eritrea. From the outside, it looks like they benefit from their association or investments in the companies that do business in those countries, or the companies that arm our military to defend themselves in foreign lands and equip our home defenses to protect against the resentment our occupations cause. But, from the inside, it’s more complicated. It’s about the evils of communism, or fascism, or Islamo-fascism, or whatever is required as a rhetorical tool next week.The way Kagan sees it is actually quite interesting to read. He thinks it is natural for a party too long out of power to become accustomed to opposing our foreign policy and therefore drift into a dangerous isolationism. Of course, it isn’t entirely clear for whom this drift presents a danger. It’s certainly not a threat to the American taxpayer, just for one example. But, it is definitely a threat to those that make their living hawking military and homeland security equipment...

The rest of each article can be found here: http://spidel.net/blog/?p=660

[MrModerate]

1. Isolationist vs Interventionist is a bogus distinction . . .

"Engagement" is what's needed. Like we DID do in Bosnia and DIDN'T do in Rwanda.

[primative1]

4. How would you define Somalia...

Man that was one big screwup no matter how you define it.

[SOS]

5. George HW Bush

launched Operation Restore Hope in Somalia on December 9, 1992.
How to define it?
Another Bush failure.

[Catrina]

11. Another Bush foreign adventure ~

[MrModerate]

24. I'd say 1) Pick your fights . . .

(as in "thank you, George HW Bush") and 2) fight them with something like a plan (as in "You sure screwed that one, Bill").

[OzarkDem]

14. Law Enforcement is what works

Clinton caught the terrorists behind the first 9-11 attack with good old police work - with the help of Interpol, and the police forces of foreign governments.

Fighting terrorism is a job for law enforcement and police investigation. Ground invasions are a clumsy, expensive and dangerous tool. They breed terrorism instead of stopping it.

Neo-Cons already know this, but its real estate they're after.

[MrModerate]

25. Very similar to what I've been saying (and not just me, of course) . . .

Since 9/11: The "war" on terror isn't a war at all, any more than the "war" on drugs or the "war" on poverty are wars.

What's called for is just what you say -- International police work, along with cooperation on the intelligence, interdiction, and education sides. (And the occasional military-style intervention/raid, judiciously applied.) The waste of blood, treasure, and honor that's been expended in Iraq, the result of which is to strengthen the world terrorist movement, makes me want to weep.

And it wouldn't hurt to get a clue as to what drives people to express their frustration/political will through terroristic acts. As an example, our foolish support for the state of . . . Egypt (you thought I was going to say "Israel," didn't you?) is breeding a generation of Islamic-leaning political activists who hate our guts because we continue to prop up Mubarak and his thugs. We're clearly sowing the wind there, and the whirlwind is not far off. And this is a bipartisan, multi-administration boondoggle that the West will have to atone for with blood.

Georgie's idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East is not so wrong -- as long as you don't try to do it at the point of a gun. But what passes for "democracy" in Egypt is an abomination. We're headed that way in Iraq, unless we get lucky and their civil war results in three independent states. At this point, that strikes we as the most positive (and likely) outcome.

[endarkenment]

2. We are very likely to get snookered in 06/08

If they bushistas cannot steal these elections the fallback plan is to have enough 5th column neocon asshats in the Dem party leadership to keep the whole ball rolling along. This has been the plan all along. We are just peasants to be rented out as consumers to global corporations and fooled into thinking we have any choice or say in our government.

[Armstead]

3. I have very mixed emotions about this....

I do think the US needs to have a strong defense, and needs to be aggressive against actual threats of terrorism. That is not opposed to the ideasa of liberalism or of progressive positions.

However, I define these terms a lot differently than the neo-cons. Fighting terrorism, IMO, means focusing very narrowly on those elements who actually are trying to carry out shit agasinst the US. It also means leading and cooperationg with a global effort against all forms of terrorism and atrocities like the Sudan.

However, that does not mean "transforming the Middle East into a free market democracy" or any such shit. If the people there want free-market democracies, we should support that -- but we shouldn't be meddling or trying to impose our ideas on them.

I also believe that defending freedom at home means exactly that. Defending FREEDOM. It does not mean taking away freedom, using security as an excuse.

In that regard, the Democratic Neo-Cons nd Centrists have screwed the pooch, by going along with the excesses and stupidity of the GOP Neo-Cons.

They wuz conned.

[pberq]

6. Kick & Nominated - important information for DUers

Sometimes it's easy to fall into the habit of suuporting anybody aith a "D" after his/her name.

[kaygore]

7. Excellent article--reminds me of the movie "Why We Fight"

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue but a human issue that those in power do not want us to address.

[Aiptasia]

8. Further fodder to abolish the two party system

Frankly, I don't trust any of them, Republican or Democrat. They're all in the back pockets of big business and PAC money. Politics really is the entertainment branch of big business.

[ShortnFiery]

9. "They're all in the back pockets of big business and PAC money."

Yes! That is the alpha and omega of our present situation. Unfortunately far too many people will fold INSTEAD of holding OUR, yes *OUR* Democratic Representatives feet to the fire ... Represent the PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS first and foremost!

[meganmonkey]

10. That Kagan article is very interesting

I read it this morning.

It got me thinking about a lot of things.

I think the Dem voters would do very well to be as critical of their own leadership as they are of the Repubs.

I have seen people here in total denial about the reality of Dem party leadership, Dem complicity in the war, the PNAC agenda, and corporate welfare, and the inability of a significant amount of truly progressive dems to infiltrate the Congress (because of the party leadership which is fighting against the will of the voters).

If the Dems in Congress are complicit (aside from a few exceptions, of course), then are not the voters themselves complicit? By believing vague promises when there is no evidence that they will be kept, are the voters not propping up the status quo - a status quo we know will result in more war profiteering, less jobs, less social services...

I just think that if we truly want change we need to start from truth and honesty. And the truth is, unless something extremely unexpected happens, the next several years, even with Dems in the majority, will be more of the same with some superficial changes. Yet I see people here say that the war will end if the Dems win back congress and the WH, or that NAFTA will be repealed, or we'll get universal health care...but if we look critically at the voting history of and campaign donations to the Dems, we see a checkered history.

We need to be honest about who we are supporting, or we are fooling ourselves. Just like true fiscal conservatives were fooled by bushco and most of the other repubs in office. The Democratic party, for the most part, is not what we would like it to be. It is a slippery slope. How far are you willing to let it slide?

[sendero]

17. I agree 100%...

... in 2001, I would have vehemently disagreed with your main point. After 5 years of watching Dems go along and go along and go along, the only conclusion I can reach is that they really don't think Bush is that far off. They would tweak his actions at the margins, but seem to have no problem with the big picture.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Kick. Needs more attention and discussion

[welshTerrier2]

13. repeat after me: "the left" are NOT isolationists

saying those on the left are isolationists is a common stereotype; it's also a myth ...

making a nice clean black and white, us versus them, realists versus idealists divide between the conservative and progressive wing of the Democratic Party over just how interventionist the US should be is total gibberish ...

the divide is NOT over whether the US should involve itself internationally ... the divide IS over when and how we should get involved ... and towards what purpose ...

the current rift inside the Democratic Party, an it's a very real and very serious rift, is specifically over Iraq ... the left never accepted bush's lies; the Lieberman wing did - and still does ... the rift is about the illicit use of military force TO PROMOTE CORPORATE INTERESTS ... there were no WMD's ... there were no ties to Al Qaeda ... there was no imminent genocide ... there were no mushroom clouds ...

what was there? there was OIL !!!!! go research the PSA's that have been signed ... huge multi-national BIG OIL interests have benefitted from this war more than any industry in the history of mankind ... so don't allow others to paint the left as isolationist ... we object to the immorality of spending America's blood and treasure for illicit, greedy commercial gain ...

my Congressman, Jim McGovern, was recently arrested for protesting outside the Sudanese embassy ... he, and I, strongly support an active role for a multi-national force to bring aid to the people of Darfur ... millions are likely to die before the end of this year if aid is not delivered very soon ... this is a policy of engagement ... it's a policy of knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly ... it certainly is not isolationism ...

and a few points about militarism ... i support a strong defense ... i think we should have all the defense we require ... i do NOT think we should continue to bankrupt, and weaken, the country with insane military expenditures ... more is not always better - sometimes it's worse ... again, follow the money ... there's a whole lot of people who keep crying for more, more, more ... they like to label their critics as idealists or pacifists or naive or lefty extremists ... but it is they who suck the strength from our national defenses while they continue to fatten their bloated, porky pig lifestyles ... they are greedy cheaters who use the left as a convenient foil to rally the ill-informed to their side ...

and finally, terrorism ... terrorism, for want of a better label, is real ... but what is the best approach to combatting terrorism?? is it to use tactical nuclear weapons in civilian areas? is it to mobilize hundreds of thousand of Americans to wage a never-ending war on terrorism? how can anyone be naive enough to believe a war like that can ever be won??

is it possible that some use of force may be needed to combat terrorism in certain parts of the world from time to time? of course ... but looking primarily through a military lens, as bush has done, is INSANE ... if future leaders really wanted to reduce terrorist incidents, the first step should be an honest analysis of exactly what the terrorists are trying to accomplish, i.e., what is their motivation?

the answer seems, at least to me, to be very simple ... no, they don't "hate us for our freedoms" ... what kind of crap is that? what they hate is our military occupation of their lands ... what they hate is the imposition of our cultural values where they live ... what they hate is the endless building of military bases all over the world ... what they hate is the continued support our government shows to oppressive regimes like the Saudi government ... what they hate is the exploitation of their people and their resources (especially oil) ...

it seems to me before we mobilize our military to battle these "terrorists", perhaps a little national introspection is necessary ... is it just possible that those who control US foreign policy are not quite as moral as we would want them to be? is it just possible that "terrorists" wouldn't attack us or our regional puppets if our policies did not harm them and seek to exploit them? the solution to terrorism, or at least what should be an absolutely necessary first step towards reducing it, is a major change in the blatant imperialism of US foreign policy ... we may never be able to put an end to all acts of terrorism; it's obvious, however, that taking away its primary causes is a critical place to start ...

[Totally Committed]

15. I agree... the "Leftist as isolationist" meme is nothing but a

thoughtless stereotype, and in most cases, totally incorrect. As a Leftist, I think that the wealth of this country should be used to lift the poorest up, educate and feed the children, and make life decent for all instead of buying bombs, fighting unnecessary wars, and paying Halliburton to nation-build in my name. No thanks. If thinking that diplomacy first, and war only as a last resort id "isolationist", they have coined a new meaning for the word.

I also agree with wT2 that they don't "hate us for our freedoms" -- that's just the balm of the Bush administration to cool the brows of Americans who feel their freedoms have been taken away, and to justify all the jingoistic rhetoric that comes from it day in and day out. They hate us for "the exploitation of their people and their resources (especially oil) ..." -- yes -- but, also for sticking our super-power nose where it does not belong, for the arrogance of our leaders, and our administration's support for those they see as thier oppressors.

This "NeoCon Democrat" idea needs to be nipped in the bud, or this Party will SURELY LOSE THOSE LIKE ME. That's no idle threat... just a promise.

TC

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. recommended

[hadrons]

18. "host of pundits and young national security experts ..."

young enough to enlist?

[Zorra]

19. No surprise here.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[bush_is_wacko]

22. My sentiments exactly! The US government is a corrupt as they come

right now and even I am having a real hard time finding a candidate I am willing to back.

I have always voted Democrat but I am increasingly disappointed with the candidates I helped put in office. They are sitting around on their fat asses coming up with excuse after excuse not to do the right thing and impeach, prosecute, and convict the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States. They even have the nerve to DEBATE whether this is THE most corrupt administration in the history of the US!

It makes me sick to think I voted for these guys! they may be powerless but they sure as shit aren't VOICE-LESS. Why can't they just come out and say it? It is time they speak up or get OUT!

I truly wish voting for a third party candidate wasn't a throw away vote because I have yet to see a candidate that truly represents the average American anymore.

[Zorra]

28. If Dems can take back the House in '06 and manage to keep the

corporate Dems from taking over every chair, we might actually become an effective force for progressive change again.

There are some Dems, like Reps. Conyers and Kucinich, who ARE just coming out and saying it, repeatedly, but the MSM makes sure their voices don't carry too far.

These are the type of Dems that, if given a chance, might actually begin the process that would eventually send all these corrupt republican crooks to prison.

[Time for change]

20. I think that the BooMan article hit the nail on the head

I smell a big rat in this movement.

Lieberman a liberal??!!!!

And what about this bullshit implication that liberal Democrats are afraid to use force when necessary? What the fuck is he talking about? Viet Nam? Iraq? Grenada? I guess there's no need to give examples, since the corporate media has repeated that cliche so often that it ought to be common knowledge by now.

[paineinthearse]

21. Joe must go!

And take Warner and Vilsack with you. Form a 3rd party, good riddence!

[LibertyorDeath]

23. Can we round them up?

[demdiva]

26. THIS IS NOT NEOCONISM

Why are they promoting the idea that being strong on defense and security is the same as being a neocon? "Promoting democracy around the globe" is far different then forcing states into democracy.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary...

[wyldwolf]

27. you're right. The author of one of these pieces supported John Bolton...

... amazing the sources some will use when it suits them