Only 12% of Americans, plus the Third Way/PPI/DLC, approve raising troop levels.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-21-06 04:44 PM
Original message

Only 12% of Americans, plus the Third Way/PPI/DLC, approve raising troop levels.

Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 04:46 PM by madfloridian

What an amazing combination. 12% of the whole damn country is disapproving of more troops, but our centrist Democrats put a post up bragging about how they were right before Bush was right.

http://www.third-way.com/press/release/31

“Better Late Than Never,” Group Notes
Washington – In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, President Bush admitted that “we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines,” and he told the paper that he intends to increase the end-strength of the “stressed” military to meet future needs. Third Way President Jonathan Cowan today said in a statement: “this is a welcome development, but it took far too long for the President to arrive at a conclusion that Third Way, military leaders, outside experts, and some in Congress reached years ago.”

In early May 2005, Third Way issued a report called Boots on the Ground: Increasing the Size of the Army to Meet the Missions of the 21st Century. In that report, the group quoted multiple experts of all stripes who were calling for an increase in Army end-strength. Even active duty leaders were willing to speak out; for example, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, said “I’m going to take a little risk here and I’m going to tell you that intuitively, I think we need more people. I mean, it’s just that simple.” The report called for an increase in Army end-strength of 100,000 troops.

On the same day that Third Way released that report, a number of leaders in Congress, including Senators Lieberman, Clinton, Reed, Bill Nelson and Salazar, along with Representatives Tauscher and Udall, introduced “The Army Relief Act of 2005,” calling for a permanent authorized end-strength increase of 100,000 troops. The bill was ignored by the President and his allies in Congress. Indeed, as the Post noted today, the President was still publicly rejecting calls for an increase in troops as recently as June 2006.

And here is the video from Scarborough Country where he plays up the poll that says only 12% of Americans approve sending more troops. Right now for our Third War Dems to come out in favor of increasing the military makes it sound like they are wanting more troops on the ground in Iraq, whether that is their intent or not.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/21/12969/

And then I remembered a quote from Michael Steinhardt of the PPI, way back in 1995 in Time Magazine. The group was attacking Bill Clinton for not being "centrist" enough. He said something about the fact that he was not sure Clinton would go along with what they were planning. I wonder what that entailed, and I found myself wondering if "expanding" Democracy in the Middle East was part of it. Interesting comments from Al From as well. What a bunch this is.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983141-2,00.html

Most of these bankrollers are backing Clinton, says Steinhardt, who identifies himself, Diller and Hart as the three most willing to walk away from Clinton right now. "Precisely because we could be washed out in a Clinton loss, I hope our 'third way' leads to a third party," says Steinhardt. "That's a ticket to irrelevance," Rattner retorts. "We should stick with Clinton as we try to remake the party." "But why support someone who's conned you?" asks Diller.

Al From himself embodies John Maynard Keynes' warning that the real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping from old ones. "The problem for us and him," says From, "is that Clinton promised to be different. He's been that a bit, but the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The fundamental change he pledged hasn't come. We've been consistent in articulating the ideas he won on, but he hasn't been consistent in advancing them. We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."

Which means what? "Al feels a loyalty to Clinton because he feels responsible for electing him," says Steinhardt. "But what we're planning is bigger than some psychological thing. We'll just have to see if Clinton buys our new stuff. If not, and someone else takes it on, then we'll probably fracture." Then Clinton will have even more trouble than he has already.¹

It's a mistake for any part of our party to call for increasing the military right now. It really is. Let Little Boots be the only one doing that...and that "sell-out" John McCain. Talk about rebuilding the military after Junior is gone. Otherwise it will be taken as wanting more boots on the ground...especially since the Third Way put out a paper called that very thing. Boots on the Ground.

http://www.third-way.com/products/12

A pdf file.