Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

[Swamp Rat]

Before you vote for Hillary Clinton, please consider the following:

Research Questions:

Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?

Will electing her to be the President of the United States not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also damage the U.S. Government for generations, if not forever, thus transforming it into a permanent police state or empire?

Data:

1. Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

2. Hillary Clinton praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed (see below).

3-5. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

1. Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

2. Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&contentid=253482

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

3. Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

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."

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 neoconservative 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. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism"), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot 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 (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to 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 Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

4. Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"
(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

5. Progressive Policy Institute

"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," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), 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 . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph 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 (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

________________

Conclusion:

You decide.

Will a vote for a PNAC-PPI-DLC candidate, not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also empower those who will continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Finally, will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?


________________________

[lligrd]

1. It's Been One Of My Fears

I have suspected since her IWR vote that she is in cahoots with them at some level.

[Swamp Rat]

2. So, perhaps she wasn't 'fooled' into voting for the IWR?

Maybe she knew for what she was voting all along? :shrug:

[lligrd]

4. You'd Have To Be An Idiot To Think Hillary Was Stupid

enough to not know what was going on. One thing Hillary is not is stupid.

[Swamp Rat]

5. I agree: Hillary Clinton is not stupid.

I think she is very intelligent.

So where does this lead us?

[lligrd]

7. She's Either Willingly Part Of It Or She Sold Out Because

she thought it would guarantee her the Presidency.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Isn't that a false dichotomy?

I mean, being a 'willing part of it" and "selling out" are not mutually exclusive, nor does one preclude the other, right?

[lligrd]

15. No But Giving Her The Benefit Of The Doubt, Selling Out

might mean that once she was in power she wouldn't necessarily go along with the plans. Either way, I no longer trust her.

If she really is part of it, you have to wonder how many others in our party are as well. That thought terrifies me.

[Swamp Rat]

19. It should terrify you... it does me as well.

It should terrify every Democrat who can read.

[Moochy]

141. The Fellowship

Your thread on her DLC dealings, along with threads about her church paint an interesting portrait of power.
Kick to the Rec !!! :kick: :thumbsup:

:think:

Elites that prey together pray together!

[anonymeme]

208. "Elites that prey together pray together!" You Must Mean Like Obama & Rev Wright! n/t

[YOY]

364. Are you slow?

Because that's the kind of connection only a slow person would take.

All apologies to the slow.

[anonymeme]

394. *Pffft!*

[anonymeme]

425. Swamprat & ALL Read Post #37. It's the Truth About Making 1 Phony Connection Between the DLC & PNAC!

Here it is and thank you and bless you Marie!:

"37. False: "The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall"
So first you set up the connection as Hillary - DLC - PNAC, which is already three degrees of Kevin Bacon. But even that connection is false. The headline says that Marshall is a member of PNAC, but the actual text doesn't say that at all. Marshall isn't a member of PNAC, & it's pretty misleading to pretend that he is. This is a pretty irresponsible post IMO. But then, since Hillary Clinton is known to be the source of all evil, the connection is already pretty self-evident to most people here."

[Grinchie]

166. Hilary and the DLC Believe in Sustainable War for Profit

That feeds the Corporate coffers and externalizes all of the bad blowback that comes from it.

They have no plans for who needs to pick up the costs of War, other than they have a nation of Americans that blindly pay taxes without demanding any sort of accountability for where the tax dollars are going.

I doubt if many Americans even consider what use the incredibly hight tech tooling could be used for if it was freed from the yoke of National Security, building weapons of mass destruction

If one factors in the wages of the technicians, the tooling, the exotic materials, and used those resources for energy, housing and healthcare, we would be sulf sustaining. Can't have that, no no no.

[anonymeme]

209. You Have NO Proof of Any of That. You Just Have Insinuations, Innuendo & LIES! n/t

[truedelphi]

369. Nope and since Israel is our good ally, we should bear the brunt

Of any and all war dramas in the Middle East. In part, we took out Iraq for them.

The very first oil field up and running went from Iraq to a port in Israel.

And now we need to take Iran out also. The DLC says this right on their home page (At least, it did two weeks ago.)

[anonymeme]

395. Obama's Grandmother is Jewish. What Better Way to Please Grandma Than to Protect Israel at ALL COSTS

John McCain is not the only one who is thick with Joe "No-More-a-Democrat" Lieberman.

Check out how much Obama and Lieberman put their heads together.

[truedelphi]

397. Will DO. thanks for pointing this out.

[anonymeme]

206. Yes, The Use of Hateful LIES to Malign & Destroy a Good Person & Former First Lady Should Terrify Us

Yes, The Use of Hateful LIES to Malign & Destroy a Good Person & Former First Lady Should Terrify Us ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ASK OURSELVES WHY IS THIS BEING DONE?!

There is no real Truth to this. It's a wretched pack of LIES! Any morsels of any fact or detail that might be he slightest bit true has been twisted into a MASSIVE LIE!

[leftrightwingnut]

221. Why all the histrionics? Thanks for confirming the OP.

I am quite willing to listen to reasoned discourse on the subject. Your hysteria seems to indicate that the OP strikes dangerously close to the truth. Wow.

[anonymeme]

229. Your Characterization of My Posts Is NOT True. I AM Passionate, But Well-Reasoned,

But other people should read my posts for themselves and make up their own minds.

I'm one person alone up against a wall of the ignorance and unjust tactics of the Obama WAVE. I have to fight a little harder to keep from drowning in lies, bullying and mob tactics.

Of course, I recognize you're operating with the same tactics as the media does any more: What are people to believe, you or their own lying eyes? Right?

File under nice try.

[Swamp Rat]

232. "unjust tactics of the Obama WAVE"... "bullying and mob tactics."

What are we, the "Waffen-Barack Gestapo?" :wow:

[anonymeme]

274. Hey, You Said It -- Your Words Not Mine -- But at Least You Recognize the Obama Gang's Tactics. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

286. LOL! Obviously, I was quoting you.

What's your major malfunction? :shrug:

[anonymeme]

294. I Was Referring to These Words Which Were Yours: "What are we, the 'Waffen-Barack Gestapo?'" n/t

[f the letter]

331. Any fact-oriented or debate-oriented responses?

Please? If you disagree tell us why. You can't just write off disagreement as part of the opposing candidate's "wave"

[anonymeme]

396. Fair Question, "f," But It Will Take a Massive Amt of Time & It's a Bear to Prove a Negative...

It will take awhile, but I will seriously get cracking on it.

[whathappened]

312. just don't get it

neither 1 of these 2 are worth there salt , we let the media take out the good canadates and left us with these 2 bush bots

[pokercat999]

316. If you're well reasoned please explain your continued

support of Hillary in view of her votes on IRW, the bankruptcy bill and the cluster bomb vote, just to name a few outright neocon supporting votes.

Now answer this: Would you rather have a President that has a record of being the most liberal member of the Senate or one who is certainly to the right (far right in my opinion) of center with their votes?

[Lerkfish]

344. *plonk*

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

244. You really need to get your meds adjusted. They're not working, it seems.

:eyes:

Clue: It's against DU rules to call another DUer a liar or to claim what they're saying is a lie. It's called "civility" - look it up.

[anonymeme]

270. #1. Show Me the Rule. #2. Did a DUer Write The Articles HIs Post Is Based On? #3. What Meds, Yours?

#1. Show Me the Rule.

#2. Did a DUer Write The Articles HIs Post Is Based On?

#3. What Meds, Yours?

#4. When an Obamaphile lectures anyone else on "civility" that's a real joke.

And you showed your "civility by implying that I'm on some kind of "meds."

The Pack of Lies I referred to where in the articles swamprat drew from to construct his post, and there is NO rule against calling a lie what it is: a LIE.

And I am one person here, out-numbered by a mob of bullies -- no matter how dainty and polite they want to pretend to be.

That's okay because it's finally gotten to where I couldn't possibly have a lower opinion of you than I do now...

But please, by all means, keep shooting for a new low, a record, you know, you personal worst...

Whatever...

[TahitiNut]

282. Wow! You really are a brain-damaged bottom-feeder, aren't you?

Poor baby! "out-numbered by a mob of bullies"? :nopity: Have you tired RomperRoom.com?? :eyes:

[anonymeme]

288. Wow, Now Tell Me Again About "Civility?" BTW, Bottom-Feeders Don't Care About Injustice, I Do Care.

As to brain-damaged, what I write and how I write it, makes a lie of that.

Now, I could get into a gutter fight with you calling names and hurling insults or we could get into a battle of wits and I have a couple of scathing zingers I could lob at you, but what purpose would be served by it?

It's a waste of time, besides I'd have the advantage and really, I feel sorry for you.

[snooper2]

348. Oh my...

"As to brain-damaged, what I write and how I write it, makes a lie of that."


And I'm just focusing on the "how I write it" part.... :evilgrin:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lerkfish]

343. I like your sig line.

maybe your should take it to heart.

[AntiFascist]

357. The PPI was created specifically to support Bill Clinton....

Will Marshall was a founding member of the PPI and supported PNAC to the extent of signing their letters and echoing their policies in his writings. These are inconvenient FACTS, whether you like them or not.

[anonymeme]

202. It Appears that Few Obamaphiles Capable of Fairness or Logic Let Alone Benefit of the Doubt!

Again I'm giving you the same kind of "benefit of he doubt" you say you're giving Hillary, when I ask you: Have you stopped kicking dogs, beating your grandmother and lying, yet?

[FatDave]

117. Swamp Rat, I get so enthralled with your graphics...

...that sometimes I forget you're damn smart too. Thanks for reminding me.

[anonymeme]

196. It's False Reasoning and a Fallacious Argument, And a Lie, To Boot. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

234. Prove it.

I got all year....

[Lochloosa]

311. So do I

[anonymeme]

193. Those Are Not the Only Choices. Here's Another: This is a False Claim Against Hillary - Which It Is!

BTW, Have you stopped kicking dogs, beating your grandmother and lying, yet?

[Kurovski]

227. Psst...Spamcan...c'mere...

tell me, how many times are we supposed to accept Clinton failures and keep smiling?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Health Care, NAFTA, War vote, Vote for Iran War, praise of a Republican war-president nominee, and other such stuff? When do we get to say this crap doesn't look like a true progressive Democrat's actions?

That's a rhetorical question.

[Swamp Rat]

238. I wonder what Marge Simpson said about political message boards.

:D :hi: :hug:

[Kurovski]

246. What was the "safe word" that would stop the elephant in that particular episode?

I think it was a word that Krusty couldn't recall right away, but would make the elephant release captives from being consumed.

She might be saying that right about now. :D

[anonymeme]

254. There is NO Spam to Fighting as Hard as I Can Against Injustice to a Good Person Which Hillary IS!

Spam artists get their prefab BS from sources that stockpile the stuff, and then clone and regurgitate it over and over.

I respond to and answer each statement of errors, illogic and lies as I meet them.

And as I pointed out to someone else in a previous thread, at the moment I seem to be one person working alone and fighting to keep my head above the Obama Wave and the runaway BS they are spouting as fast as it will flow... so I have to fight a little harder to keep from being overwhelmed and drowned by the lies and lousy tactics.

Re: Hillary: What failures? Those things are lies. She never promoted NAFTA, she didn;t like it but as the wife of a sitting President she could not openly opposed it.

As to the Iraq vote, we've gone over that ground and you know Obama wasn't even in Congress at that time when the Democrats were being pressured on all side, by the Bush gang that was whipping up the fear and the public who were in a state of terror.

As to continued funding for the war so as not to hurt our troops Hillary and Obama both voted the same way and if I have my information correct on their votes with regard to Iran they both voted the same way on that also.

And praise for an old war hero who has worked bipartisanly with the Dems on many issues, that's just constructive inter-party diplomacy and a certain human kindness.

Do you have any clue at all how the actual ins and outs of government work?!

Because that's not evident, but your knowledge of how destructive propaganda works seems pretty evident because you and a lot of Obamaphiles are riding it like a hound from Hell!

[Kurovski]

264. You can start by creating readable posts. It's really difficult to consume your missives.

The NAFTA support is well documented now. I believe you saw some of the released documents from the Clinton Presidential era?

Most of us here in this thread have been following information for years. So far you have nothing new to convince me away from that which I've seen for myself for over two decades. You might want to work--not harder--but perhaps "smarter" on that count.

The OP is a Kucinich supporter, and I'm a less than enthusiastic Obama supporter, so wailing about how Obama does the same shit as Clinton means nothing to me.

[anonymeme]

277. If You Can Read You Can Read My Posts But Pray Tell How to Make My Missives More Consumable to You?

But, Oh, My God, Your Assumptions Are Astounding!

I too have been following a plethora of information on politics, government and international affairs for as long if not longer than you. And I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Just because we don't have th same take on these things, does not mean that your take is correct and that mine is invalid nor incorrect.

With regard to working smarter, I really am open to suggestions on that score, but keep in mind that sometimes smart is in the eye of the beholder.

As to One "Drop In" at the End of a Meeting Oragnized and Put Together Doesn't Document Squat About Any Support.

[Kurovski]

285. Being as clear as possible: It's just common courtesy extended to others.

Employing punctuation, for starters. But I'm not an English teacher. The font is also intrusive when used to excess.

Have you been here before under another name? Your "voice" and quirks seem very familiar, strikingly so. All those capitols. A name is right on the tip of my tongue...

Well, welcome back, I guess.

[Swamp Rat]

287. LOL!

;)

[anonymeme]

293. Again, That Artifice About "Civility" I Was Every Bit As Civil as Most and More So Than Many.

Again, That Artifice About "Civility" I Was Every Bit As Civil as Most and More So Than Many.

I DO employ punctuation, so I believe you may need to get your eyes checked.

We may have a difference of opinion about punctuation -- I'm not sure which particular post or sentence to which you refer -- but I grew up with the school of punctuation being: "When in Doubt, Leave it out."

I've never posted here before about 3 weeks to a month ago, is it?

I've been online since late summer 1995 -- I can't remember when I first heard of the DU, but it was rather rapid moving and very much one-sided -- which even though I'm a Democrat -- I need more than a one-sided perspective to be able to think critically about the Truth about various issues and people.

Occasionally, I would stumble onto DU when I was researching subject matter for the other forums on which I post, and sometimes found links to good material I could use in terms of documented sources to which I could link.

Whoever it is of whom you are thinking, it is not I.

So now is this white bread no color or more readable size font to your liking?

And whether it is or not, I'm not going to stick with it. I chose font color an size to suit myself and my eyes which have each had cataract surgery after a cortisone shot blew my natural lenses.

[Kurovski]

296. And now you sound like someone completely different.

Anyhoodles...you trust Senator Clinton and I do not.

We can agree on that.

[anonymeme]

299. Yes, On That We Can Agree, Well, It's 4:00 AM Here & I Need Some Zzzs Badly. So G'Nite to You & DU.

n/t

[YOY]

317. Take off the bold. Now.

It does not make your arguement better.

[anonymeme]

392. Yes, There Is NO Room For Individuality at DU Become Borg Because We Demand it. Resistance Is Futile

anonymeme the anti-borg.

[YOY]

419. No, just simple "Netiquette"

Of course if beeing a boorish bastard is your "anti-borg" thing then by all means continue. You won't win any arguements...especially by attacking Swampy.

Here is some "borg" reading for you: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

[anonymeme]

422. Yes, Because "Netiquette" Is So Important at DU, Especially to the Obama People. Read On...

If you read my response to Kurovski, you might understand that I do this for my own eyes.

And the boorish bastard is the one who insists on a site that is all about individual rights and freedoms that people pop to a lock-step mindset -- regardless of valid reasons for doing otherwise.

Get your mother to read the link you posted and while she's at it Emily Post, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution with careful attention to matters of freedom of expression and Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness -- especially Liberty.

Because if your behavior is any indication, she did a rather spotty job of raising you.

PS When is expressing a difference of opinion an attack?

I wasn't "attacking" "swampy" but I was getting attacked by people suggesting I was slow, on meds and malfunctioning. Which are all ad hominem attacks.

Oh, the one suggesting a "malfunction" came from "swampy"

When I called the reference material a pack of lies, that is a valid argument against the material not the man who posted it.

I know the distinction is probably too fine for you, but try getting it!

[Swamp Rat]

427. You have no credibility here anonymeme. Here is a perfect example why:

Your response to YOY above:

"Because if your behavior is any indication, she did a rather spotty job of raising you."

Followed by:

"PS When is expressing a difference of opinion an attack?"

You just attacked someone (someone's mother), then justified it in the very next sentence. What a terrible thing to say to someone.

I suggest you just leave this thread since you have nothing useful to contribute, but by all means, keep kicking this thread with your replies. :)

[YOY]

429. Thanks your swampiness.

This rude person is really getting to me.

[Swamp Rat]

430. S/he has nothing of value to add to the discussion.

At least s/he has kept this thread kicked. :D

:hi:

[anonymeme]

436. A Flimsy Premise Bent Into a Smear Using Fallacious Arguments Has No Value to Begin With. n/t

n/t

[Swamp Rat]

437. Oh yes it does ... It has captured you! ... You cannot leave this thread.

You are hooked like a crack junkie looking for a fix every hour.

You will NEVER leave thread because you MUST respond to every post like taking a hit off that glass pipe.

sssssssssssssSSSS! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

You feel better now.... but only for the moment.

You will be back.

You cannot help it.

You are obsessed.

You are compelled.

You have no self-control.

You are addicted.

Your willpower is gone.

Hopeless

Pitiable

Sad






























Feel better now?

[anonymeme]

438. You Know, Swamp Rat, Maybe We Could Be Better Acquaintances & Opponents If We Understood Each Other

Better.

Please read this. It may help you understand where I'm coming from, I sent a copy to the moderators, but I think maybe it would be as productive -- possibly more -- to have you read it, okay?

And I'm going to leave off the HTML on it even though it's usually an eyestrain, but it helps a little that I cut and saved what I wrote to them so I can just paste it here:

I'm not a "freeper" and tired of the tactic used by one side of the Democratic party to shoot down hard work fighting for what I believe and splitting the 16 unpaid hours a day that I post and do research to make a difference and fight like Hell for what I believe.

I am a solid Democrat and have been for over 28 years, whenever it was I realized during Carter's first term what a decent human being he was and also had a revelation about how war-dependent the Republican party is and the horrors of war was driven home to me graphically by the ad that someone shoved in my face in Hustler Mag, of a beautiful naked woman on one side and the napalm burned body of a still-living soldier, who had no arms, legs, face -- except for his eyes -- and no genitalia. He was just this stump of a thing with grayish black blisters backed by tiny bits of blood red skin, with tubes running into and out of his neck and into and out of his genital area...

His eyes just seem to beg: kill me, kill me please!

And when I could take my horrified eyes off that destroyed yet still living human form, I read the caption.

It said: Which of these pictures is obscene?

And that is the moment I formed my new but final and lasting thoughts and philosophy if you want to call it that about war, and that is this:

If you can stand the thought of your child, armless, legless, sexless or dead, then send them off to war. I cannot stand that thought for my children nor anyone elses.

I deserve to be heard on how I feel as a Democrat and NOT have what I say shot down before it gets out of the blocks with this BS.

Thank You.

[Swamp Rat]

439. Thank you for this reply. It is quite different from the others through out this thread.

I respect your life experience and it pleases me you are passionate about politics, as well as working for the Democratic Party. Your dedication to posting 16 hours a day is certainly something to consider, and I do believe a lot of DUers have read your messages. Though, you may not like some of their responses, it is up to you how you choose to react.

Consider my rather odd response to you above. I thought to myself, how can I reach this person, someone who seems (to me) rather confrontational, if not irrational? So, I wrote something that I hoped would get a different type of response, and voilà! It worked!

Yes I, too, have had a similar experience with seeing the horrors of war. When I was 5, I saw a photo of the decapitated and burned head of a Japanese soldier on the front of a Sherman Tank. I found it in a library book by accident. I went back to this book weekly for many years, just to look at it. It made me sick every time. I have also seen people killed and murdered right in front of me, and a suicide, so real life is even worse. I also live with the knowledge I will never get to know half of my family, as they were exterminated in Bobruisk by the Nazis and then the Soviets. These experiences have made me absolutely hate war and made me against the death penalty.

[anonymeme]

442. Thank You, swampy...

[anonymeme]

432. I'm a Woman 61, Who's Had Cataract Surgery & Your Pal YOY Called Me a "bastard" for Using Large Font

I'm a Woman 61, Who's Had Cataract Surgery -- on both eyes from a shot of cortisone that blew my lenses -- & Your Pal YOY Called Me a "boorish bastard" for Using Large Font.

If that ignorant creature had read my response to Kurovski, instead of swearing at me, he would have known why.

But I know in Obamaland it's only an attack if someone stands up the abuse from YOUR side & calls them on it.

I call 'em like I see 'em, his mother OR father did a lousy job of raising him to be a human being.

[YOY]

440. You are not a good person

You are a very, very, very bad bitter nasty rude person. You should leave here as you have truly do not belong here.

I called it like I saw it...and you are a boorish bastard. The large font thing? Complete BS and you know it. Don't try and flip things around and play the victim. It doesn't work here...not with how you act. It's blatantly obvious.

[Name removed]

428. Deleted message

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

[snooper2]

349. You are fucking cracking me up...

"If You Can Read You Can Read My Posts But Pray Tell How to Make My Missives More Consumable to You?"


Please keep posting...please...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[autorank]

45. Stupid, no. Short sighted, ego driven, YES K*R Mr. Swamp Thing;)

She's short sighted. She's running as a what ...Clinton... which means she mealy mouths various
solutions without providing any real punch.

You can't a liberal, leftist, or concerned about your fellow citizens if you treat war
the way a technocrat treats war. She wanted a better Iraqi effort, she studied and commented
on weapons system (please). She demanded the Iraqi's do better - an irony of ironies since we
are the Iraqi government.

She ignores the fact that the Iraqi people want us out real quick according to every survey, 80%
or so of they say this consistently.

She ignores the million dead civilians and five million orphans. It takes a superpower to orphan
a child.

What's she about? Being a "Clinton" - which is not all that compelling when the nation is in crisis.

Bill breathed life into the DLC. Hillary wants to re-animate it. 0(On Edit: which is why you and
I agree, as per your trust point. The pols think we're such idiots. It's a huge mistake. The
collective judgement of the citizens is virtually flawless when THEY GET THE FACTS. It's such
a locked down information environment.)
:hi:

[anonymeme]

183. A Legislator Votes Based on the Intel He or She Has Been Given...

Yes, "You'd Have To Be An Idiot To Think Hillary Was Stupid" and you'd have to be an idiot to believe Hillary would have voted for Bush's war because she thought a war ion Iraq was a good idea!

The Dems all took a bunch of pressure and convincing to sign on for this war, by devious means from the Bush gang on one side and the fears of the public -- which Bush and Co had artificially generated -- on the other side. They were basically being told if they didn't go along they would be traitors to this country and its safety and basically terrorist sympathizers if they didn't sign on to this deal.

You cannot help the people if yo are out of your job to help the people...

Do you get that?

Weren't you there when all this was going on 6 years ago?

I was, I remember what the political climate was and the fear all around by the sheep and mice and rabbit and chicken heads around me.

[Grinchie]

236. Yes, and the Ones that Voted for IWR just happen to have close ties with DLC

Coincidence? Maybe, but they were all to lazy or stupid to look at the facts and research for themselves. Instead, they took the lobbiest words as gospel and voted for war.

[anonymeme]

262. Those Who Voted For It Did So Under Extreme Pressure in a Climate of Fear Cranked By the Right-Wing!

Those Who Voted For It Did So Under Extreme Pressure in a Climate of Fear Cranked By the Right-Wing!

The public was going crazy seeing terrorists under every bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were seeing to it that fear and terror were being constantly whipped into a frenzied froth and fed to the public on a daily basis.

Basically, the Democrats in Congress were between Scylla and Charybdis, fighting to do what they could and keep their political lives -- because you cannot help the people unless you are in a position to help the people, and they were being told they would be viewed as traitors and terrorist sympathizers if they didn't give Bush this war and that he was going to get it one way or the other and they might as well go along with the program or be rendered politically and socially inert.

Where were all of you judgmental idiots, 6 years ago that you don't know or understand all of this?

[Swamp Rat]

300. "Where were all of you judgmental idiots, 6 years ago"

Protesting the impending Iraq war.

In combat in Afghanistan.

Writing thousands of letters to Congress.

We were doing everything we could to stop politicians, like Hillary Clinton, from giving Bushler the green light to invade another country, which did not attack us.

What were you doing? Reading "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey?"

[Lerkfish]

345. so, you prefer someone who is easily extorted by the right?

instead of someone who acts out of principle for what is right?

[anonymeme]

393. "Easily?!" You Must Have Been Toking Up w/ Your Head In a Dark Space to Say This Happened "Easily!"

It must be so nice to have such a clear view of extremely difficult things other people are actually dealing with from the unpressured comfort of your retro-style living room chair.

And, you know, it's easy to have "principles" when your neck isn't the one on the block.

Obama wasn't even in Congress to be tried or to have his principles tried on the issues at hand at that very frenzied, fear-ridden and fear driven time.

He wasn't there then and since he came to Congress 4 years after Hillary, he has voted just has she has on all similar matters.

Who are you trying to fool now?!

[ClassWarrior]

60. Hey, if she was "fooled," then why didn't we hear an outcry from her...

...after she discovered the deception? Or even a simple apology?

NGU.

[uponit7771]

80. RIGHT!!! That's why she's disenginuous in saying "she didn't read it" which is stupid!!! She couldve

..defended her vote any many of ways but "I didn't read it!?!?!" (resoluation)

That's bout stupid

[anonymeme]

222. OK, Why Did Obama Mistakenly Vote to Cut Welfare Aid to Children in Sen. Hendon's District? STUPID?

...or EVIL?

[Voice for Peace]

148. what is NGU?

[Change has come]

192. I wondered too

Never Give Up

[Voice for Peace]

199. ahhhh. ok. Yes I won't.

[anonymeme]

218. Neither Will I. This is a Crock of LIES Brought to You by the Obamaphiles Courtesy of the Right-Wing

Why are Obama People working with the Right-Wing to Destroy Hillary?

And why is anyone popping to it?

[Swamp Rat]

298. What are "Obamaphiles?" n/t

[Kurovski]

305. I never laid a hand on Barack! It was an accident! I slipped! He asked for it!

Anything else you hear is a lie. A lie, a big dishonest lie besmirching a long-time Democrat which is me!!

[Lerkfish]

346. alerted.

pretty sure you're not supposed to make accusations like that.

[anonymeme]

424. I Believe in the Idea: Be Just & Fear Not. But Can You Tell An Ad Hominem From a Valid Argument?

"Heaven from Hell, Blue Skies from Pain?
And tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?"

Thank God or the Fates or the Powers that Be, that apparently the Powers that Be Here at DU, still recognize the difference... in ad hominem and valid arguments... or the validity of opinion regarding material not the poster.

[FatDave]

116. Of course she wasn't fooled into the IWR!

Isn't one of the tenets of the DLC that democrats needed to be more hawkish in order to compete with the GOP?

But she was "fooled". Sure. Mr. Occam, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

[Swamp Rat]

210. LOL!

It's busy. :D :hi:

"... a foo' cayn't get foo'ed agayne... heh heh!"

[Grinchie]

415. Compete with the GOP? No Way

The DLC just wants to blend in till you can't tell a difference anymore.

The way they destroy education, they figure they can split the vote three ways then rig the election the way they please.

[Hieronymus]

142. The least offensive reason would be that she did it to appear tough ...

looks more like a neocon thing...look out for Hillary.

[anonymeme]

174. NO! She WAS Fooled Into Voting for the IWR. Just Like the Rest of the Dems In Congress, By Bush & Co

NO! She WAS Fooled Into Voting for the IWR. Just Like the Rest of the Dems In Congress, By Bush & Co.

Bush & Co are the Enemy - NOT long-loved and trusted Democrats.

Don't you see how you are being used as tools by the forces of the Right-Wing to destroy people who have been good Democrats and good to the US and the Democratic party, and by so doing to destroy the Democratic party itself.

And for what?

Ask yourself why they want so badly to destroy someone who has been a freakin' great soldier and warrior for us Dems. WHY?

[elleng]

182. Thank

you.

[anonymeme]

280. elleng...

Thank you, too. Glad to know I'm not alone in here. ~*:hug:*~

[elleng]

283. It helps,

doesn't it?

[Swamp Rat]

213. I hope you are right.

I may have to vote for her if she wins the Democratic primary. She's my last hope for the slower, more peaceful decline of U.S. dominance.

If you're wrong, we are totally f....

[anonymeme]

279. Fair Enough.

Genuinely Fair Enough, swamprat. *s*

[TahitiNut]

258. So, she's a fool, huh?

Is that why she voted to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization - thus giving the Cheney/Bush regime license to use military force on Iran?? "Fool me twice ...?"

Is that why she voted for the abomination of "Bankruptcy Reform"??

Sorry ... I don't suffer fools gladly.

:puke:

[bvar22]

281. So Hillary was "fooled" into voting for the IWR.

That is really not s good qualification for President.

Hillary: "I am NOT a warmonger. I'm just an idiot for trusting Bush. Vote for MEEEE!"

Is Hillary really dumber than ALL these Democrats?

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

The Authorization to Use Military FORCE in Iraq(IWR)

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

Are you really going to argue that Hillary is not as smart as all the above?
Are you really going to argue that Hillary is easy to fool by an idiot like Bush?

The truth is that Hillary belongs to and is a LEADER of an ultra-conservative wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC.

[myrna minx]

329. Then why did all three of my elected Representatives vote NO on the IWR?

Senators Wellstone & Dayton, as well as Congressman Sabo all managed to vote no. Senator Wellstone was in the middle of a heated re-election bid too. How is it they weren't fooled yet Senator Clinton was?

[Grinchie]

374. Get some Sleep Meme

Maybe if you read the material at the links provided in the Original Post, and then sleep on it, your delusional faith may subside.

Or, keep it up, the lone ranting voice that provides absolutely nothing to back up your claims, and get paid for being the political shill/sheep that you appear to be.

[PoliticalAmazon]

390. Get a clue--Dems shit all over you and you "trust" them?

1. A politician does not get to the level of Congress by being stupid and/or a wimp.
2. The Dems in Congress, therefore, cannot be stupid and/or wimps.
3. But they are willing to appear that way. Why?
4. Because the real reason for their neocon-collaborating votes is this: they voted for those bills because it suited their best interests to do so. They went against the best interests of the American people for their own avarice and greed.

5. How can you say they are "trusted Democrats." They have continually made campaign promises and then flipped on them, sending American citizens into a worsening economy and with loss of our Constitutional rights. In short, they have repeatedly shit on the voters. Maybe you trust them, but I don't.

6. Hillary has turned people against her...no one else needed to help.

[PoliticalAmazon]

388. Yep. She's rather be seen as stupid than as a PNAC mule n/t

[jasmine621]

404. On the most important issue facing this country because it impacts on

everything there is not a dimes bit of difference between the Republicans and Dems. That issue is our ME policies. It's why we need a viable third party. Our economy, our social network, our government, our resources, our national identity, our national security, our peace of mind, and our moral fiber are all negatively affected by our willingness to engage in wars and other conflicts and other behaviors to protect, support, and enable Israel to continue practicing apartheid against the Palestinian people. Until we become the real masters of our national interests we will sink further into the abyss of history.

[KittyWampus]

27. Neither Clinton questions the assumption that NeoCons & Bushes control our Govt.

[anonymeme]

160. Your Fears Are Unfounded...

Your Fears Are Unfounded... because she only voted for that resolution because she was fed the same false, cherry-picked and misleading intelligence that the rest of Congress was fed by the Bush gang because they didn't want anything to interfere with the already previously planned war in Iraq and the eventual take over of the Middle East, to culminate in the take over of Turkey which is the jewel, the place where all ship trade is routed and all the pipelines cross.

The is more of this to explain, but it would take days, and there is so many misconceptions being fed to us by the Right-Wing, and so little time to combat it.

These are the same Clintons the Democratic party has loved and supporter for years, so ask yourself what would be different about them now? Or is it false info that we are being fed and why?

[RhodaGrits]

320. nonsense

There were so many of us that were correct in our assessment of the available intelligence that led us to be publicly against the war from the very beginning. Every single thing I discovered before we invaded has proved to be true. If I and many others were capable of seeing the truth, including other members of congress, Hillary should have been too and chose not to. I don't want someone that easily blinded or whose choices are politically expedient.

[Scairp]

242. God almighty

I really have heard it all now. I have read the PNAC manifesto, and no, she doesn't support this deeply wrong and wrong-headed philosophy. I will NEVER believe that either Clinton could EVER support the spreading of American-style democracy by force. Sure, what American doesn't wish that all people on this Earth could have the freedoms and rights we have in this country, and the right to decide one's own destiny, but no way that Hillary Clinton would support PNAC. You go too far.

[anonymeme]

284. Scairp...

A lot of wisdom in a few, well-chosen words.

Thank you. ~*:hug:*~

[Scairp]

376. You are welcome

And I continue to be flabbergasted by the way those on this site have turned against both Clintons. It has begun to sound very much like many of the right wing sites have all these years. I never would have believed it if I had not read it with my own eyes. It's disgraceful and deeply disturbing.

[Lerkfish]

352. in her own words.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html


Our nation has paid a heavy price for rejecting a long-standing bipartisan tradition of global leadership rooted in a preference for cooperating over acting unilaterally, for exhausting diplomacy before making war, and for converting old adversaries into allies rather than making new enemies. At a moment in history when the world's most pressing problems require unprecedented cooperation, this administration has unilaterally pursued policies that are widely disliked and distrusted.

Yet it does not have to be this way. Indeed, our allies do not want it to be this way. The world still looks to the United States for leadership. American leadership is wanting, but it is still wanted. Our friends around the world do not want the United States to retreat. They want once again to be allied with the nation whose values, leadership, and strength have inspired the world for the last century.

To reclaim our proper place in the world, the United States must be stronger, and our policies must be smarter. The next president will have a moment of opportunity to restore America's global standing and convince the world that America can lead once again. As president, I will seize that opportunity by reintroducing ourselves to the world. I will rebuild our power and ensure that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.

[Swamp Rat]

373. "We should aim to lead our friends and allies in building a world of security and opportunity."

For whom?

_________________

(snip)

"The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. Finally, the next president will have to address the looming long-term threats of climate change and a new wave of global health epidemics.

To meet these challenges, we will have to replenish American power by getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our military, and developing a much broader arsenal of tools in the fight against terrorism. We must learn once again to draw on all aspects of American power, to inspire and attract as much as to coerce. We must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology."

(snip)

-- "Based on evidence rather than ideology." I could swear I have heard nothing but ideology couched in pragmatism. I would have more respect for Hillary Clinton if she was just simply honest with us.

I agree with portions of her following statements regarding "Power and Principle," but what most of us (at least many at DU) already know this, and I am uncertain if she will or will not give us yet another "false choices driven by ideology."

_____________

"As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.

Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally. This will require a multibillion-dollar international effort under the direction of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Meanwhile, the United States, along with governments in Europe and the Middle East, must agree to accept asylum seekers and help them return to Iraq when it is safe for them to do so."

-- If she is our next president, I welcome the possibility of her accomplishing the above. However, this is still campaign rhetoric (similar to the other Dem candidates). There is no explicit mechanism(s) for accomplishing these great feats, delineated for our review.

_____________

"As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected."

-- Al Qaeda in Iraq? I guess that means we are never leaving the ME, right Hillary? x(

_____________

"WINNING THE REAL WAR ON TERROR

We must be unrelenting in the prosecution of the war on al Qaeda and a growing number of like-minded extremist organizations. These terrorists are as determined as ever to strike the United States. If they think they can carry out another 9/11, I have no doubt that they will try. To stop them, we must use every tool we have.

The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President Hamid Karzai's government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas, especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society."

-- Actually, the front line of the "terror war" begins here at home. Drug laws, draconian sentencing, a corporate controlled media, politicians controlled by pharmaceutical and weapons manufacturers, etc. I guess with Hillary Clinton, we'll get the same approach as before. Is this the "experience" in leadership we want? Is this "progressive" thinking?

_____________

"The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq."

-- As far as I know, this has not been proved. There were plenty of munitions left in Iraq after the first Gulf War that could be used to create IEDs. Just because Bush&Co. do not know where they are does not mean the Iraqis do not.

_____________

"As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."

-- There you have it. The opening to a war with Iran.

"On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option."

-- Hillary Clinton knows the Iranians cannot and will not acquiesce to this type of ultimatum.

_____________

"Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.

To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.

In the Senate, I have introduced legislation to accelerate and reinvigorate U.S. efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. As president, I will do everything in my power to ensure that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the materials needed to make them are kept out of terrorists' hands. My first goal would be to remove all nuclear material from the world's most vulnerable nuclear sites and effectively secure the remainder during my first term in office."

-- In other words, nuclear weapons will still be an option for the USA. Only the USA can terrorize others with the threat of utter annihilation.

_____________

"Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together."

-- What, by allowing Wal-Mart to buy and sell deadly products produced by slave labor? What about tariffs on competitive products, and a trade embargo on deadly ones? What did your experience working for Wal-Mart teach you Hillary? What did you accomplish there?

_____________

"We must also continue to cooperate with our allies in Colombia, Central America, and the Caribbean to combat the interconnected threats of drug trafficking, crime, and insurgency. Finally, we must work with our allies to provide sustainable-development programs that promote economic opportunity and reduce inequality for the citizens of Latin America."

-- So Hillary, are you going to continue our current domestic policies regarding illegal drugs?

_____________

"Equally important are the growing ranks of democracies in Africa -- some established, some new -- which will be the engines of Africa's future. We should target these countries for aid and other forms of support and work with them to strengthen regional institutions such as the African Union. The AU seeks to emulate the European Union by requiring and supporting democracy among its members, but it has a long way to go. It has thus far failed even to denounce the blatant political corruption and brutality of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. It must also develop the ability to act with sufficient strength and speed to stop mass atrocities, such as those in Darfur."

-- Yes, we have done nothing substantial to stop genocide in Darfur.

"Our interests in Africa are strategic, not just humanitarian. They include al Qaeda's efforts to seek safe havens in failed states in the Horn of Africa and the growing competition with other global players, including China, for Africa's natural resources. The long-term solution, for us as well as for Africa, is to help Africans develop both the will and the capability to address their own problems and help the continent live up to its vast potential."

-- Oh, I get it. 'Al Qaeda' is now in Africa too. Are they congregating in oil rich regions, Hillary? ;)

_____________

"BUILDING THE WORLD WE WANT

To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face. We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region. We will have to talk about Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. We will also have to take concrete steps to enhance security and spread opportunity throughout the world."

-- Well Hillary, go ahead. Get yourself on primetime TV and talk directly and plainly about the atrocities in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, and what YOU PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT. I want to know when, how, and who you will charge with crimes against humanity. I want to know if you are willing to hold George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, etc. directly responsible (since they are directly responsible) for the crimes committed, as per the implementation of their policies.

_____________

"We must also help developing nations build efficient and environmentally sustainable domestic energy infrastructures. Two-thirds of the growth in energy demand over the next 25 years will come from countries with little existing infrastructure. Many opportunities exist here as well: Mali is electrifying rural communities with solar power, Malawi is developing a biomass energy strategy, and all of Africa can provide carbon credits to the West."

-- Actually, we need to re-tool our own energy infrastructure... oh, the oil and coal industries might not like that? Yeah, let's focus on other countries with no infrastructure, and not the greatest polluter on the planet.

_____________

"Finally, we must create formal links between the International Energy Agency and China and India and create an "E-8" international forum modeled on the G-8. This group would be comprised of the world's major carbon-emitting nations and hold an annual summit devoted to international ecological and resource issues."

-- The New World Order

_____________

"Human rights will never truly be realized as long as a majority of the world's population is still treated as second-class citizens. Twelve years ago, the UN convened a historic conference on women in Beijing, where I was proud to represent our country and to proclaim that women's rights are human rights. Since then, women have been elected heads of state in countries on nearly every continent. Thanks to the United States, many, but not yet all, Afghan women have been liberated from one of the most tyrannical and repressive regimes of our day and are now in schools, in the work force, and in parliament."

-- Mission accomplished? Sort of? Hell, women in America have yet to experience economic parity, among other things. I applaud your efforts Senator Clinton, but how do you feel about the lives ruined, of mainly women, working in sweatshops producing goods for Wal-Mart these past twelve plus years?

"U.S. leadership, including a commitment to incorporate the promotion of women's rights in our bilateral relationships and international aid programs, is essential not just to improving the lives of women but to strengthening the families, communities, and societies in which they live."

-- How can we lead if we are not consistent in practicing what we preach?

_____________

"Seasoned, clear-eyed leadership can take us far. We must draw on all the dimensions of American power and reject false choices driven by ideology rather than facts. An America that rebuilds its strength and recovers its principles will be an America that can spread the blessings of security and opportunity around the world."

-- What is the driving ideology behind those statements Hillary? I am seasoned and clear-eyed, yet I still do not see where you differ substantially from the basic principles of PNAC.

[Kurovski]

389. Kick. (nt)

[Grinchie]

375. No She Supports Democracy by Outsourcing it to the Corporations

And of course we know they Love War, cause they don't have to pick up the pieces afterwards.

[kid a]

3. k

[UALRBSofL]

31. Hillary Clinton is no more a neocon then Obama is

Hillary being a DLC member does not make her a supporter of PNAC. Frankly I find this post inflammatory, extreme, divisive, and inappropriate. Hillary does not abdicate cutting taxes to balance the budget. Hillary favors pro-choice, she has stated she approves of civil unions and that she will fight to denounce DOMA. She will also repeal DADT. She does not believe religion and it's moral values should permeate the will of the people and dictate others values and beliefs. She believes in national security but has made it clear she will bring the troops home within a year and she will have the first two brigades home within 60 days. The issues Hillary discusses shows she is much more progressive then the OP's deceiving Op-Ed piece suggests. As a matter of fact, I would call OBAMA more of a Neo-Conservative considering his faith seems to want to use the government to force traditional moral values, and, this is what concerns me after seeing Wright's videos, and, seeing Rev. James Meeks is a close friend of Obama's.

[jjr5]

94. ?

I thought we were done discussing Jeremiah Wright. Let's not be divisive - continuing to discuss Jeremiah Wright is divisive. I mean, there really is nothing left to say about the issue, I think.

[bvar22]

275. Your post is mostly red herring.

The DLC (&PNAC) is NOT about social issues. They couldn't care less about who owns a gun, gets an abortion, who you sleep with, or which church you attend.
The DLC IS about POWER, MONEY,and an authoritarian "Board Room" government.
So is Hillary.

You will have to document Hillary's promise to have ALL troops out within 1 year.

I agree with the OP.
I have been paying attention.
I am no huge fan of Obama, but I prefer his promises to the certainty of a Hillary DLC Presidency.

K&R

[Grinchie]

377. You Are Absolutely Right!

PNAC has a different name in the DLC silly!

[PoliticalAmazon]

391. HRC's neocon collaboration: her actions speak louder than words

HRC has voted more often to endorse Bush's neocon agenda than certainly she has stood up against it. She has promised to vote for our best interests, then flipped and voted with the neocons. She is the DLC's hand-picked candidate; they have been pushing her for years. She promises to bring home our soldiers, but with the amount of lying she has been caught in lately, and the way she has flipped on campaign promises, only a gullible fool would believe her.

[Blue State Bandit]

6. A must read! K-n-R.

[Swamp Rat]

8. Thank you

I hope everyone at DU has a chance to read it, especially those of us here in GD-P who are still undecided for whom to vote in the remaining primaries.

[Stephanie]

9. thanks Swampy!

Excellent topic!

[Swamp Rat]

13. I believe this is the most important issue regarding Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Do we, as Democrats, support those who support the neoconservative movement?

Are we for open, free societies and economic justice for all, or military dominance of Earth's natural resources - the Zero-Sum Game?

[gristy]

11. Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

you ask. And then you ask

Will a vote for a PNAC-PPI-DLC candidate, not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also empower those who will continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Finally, will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?

Come on, stick you neck out a little. Instead of the Question Mark-based Fox News approach you've taken, would it be all that painful to convert your questions to assertions and state them at the beginning?

[Swamp Rat]

14. Red Herring

This is not about me nor the FOX News approach.

Now, how about addressing the data provided?

[gristy]

26. Swamp rat, I read you all the time and we share many views

While my post is off topic, it is a red herring only if I had intended for it to distract from the thrust of your post and if I attempted to inflame this side-debate on the margins. My point remains that you have no need to pose assertions and positions behind the safety of question marks. Fox News, cowards that they are of course, does this all the time. You do not need to, and I assert you should make a conscious effort to avoid doing so. Establish your position at the start with clear statements, back it up, and defend it. You've done 2 & 3 quite well, but the first step, not really.

[Swamp Rat]

36. Ok

I spent many days and nights regarding the approach I would pursue. Originally, I considered a much more direct and confrontational style, but I believe that would have just turned people away, especially regarding the first step; this is not about me. Perhaps I could have worded it better, or not used the interrogative (I did think about FOX News as I wrote the final draft ;) ). However, I decided that it needed to be open-ended, regardless if FOX News uses the interrogative to couch their opinions. I do not want to brawl with DUers over this. I want them to read it and internalize it, then discuss.

Thanks. :hi:

[gristy]

97. fair enough!

:hi:

[havocmom]

25. Don't go tryin to relate this to FAUX ! That rovian tactic won't fly on this

This one has facts. FAUX news doesn't rely much on facts. Trying to associate it with something is has nothing in common with is a tactic Penn and Rove use and it hasn't served HRC well at all, has it?

Evidently you can't refute the OP so you try to slap an unpleasant brand name (which is completely unrelated) in hopes that false association will deflect some real study of what was posted and discourage further discussion. Kitchen sink game plan is not working; don't even go there.

Being critical of the format is a pretty lame argument, but about the only one possible. Swampy has a lot of good info to back up his supposition. It's obvious the OP has been well thought out and well researched.

Next up: Should OP have used more, or less commas. :eyes:

[gristy]

33. wow. just wow.

Why do you think I disagree with the OP?

[havocmom]

34. Didn't say that. Said don't trot out FOX and make associations that aren't there

But, perhaps you were only joking about that, huh? I get that a lot.

[Lena inRI]

104. I hear you, havocmom and Swamp Rat . .

. . .in debate circles this trivializing by frivolous association is called

"pettifogging" = arguing by concentrating on a petty issue or making an issue of something trivial.

REALLY. . .who gives a damn if Swamp Rat asks or declares his view that Hillary may be pro-PNAC!

The important arguments and data may be asked or declared but most importantly they should be RELENTLESSLY DISCUSSED and NOT SIDE-TRACKED. . .because if Hillary's degree of acceptance of the PNAC philosophy, as seen through her actions and words, is irrefutable, than we don't have a democratic 2-party system anymore. . it's one monolithic corporatist party. . . McCain v. Hillary in 2008 is a win-win game for the PNACers.

All I know is that both Bill and Hillary are saying more pro-McCain comments than pro-Obama. Isn't this screaming out to us Democrats that they are, at least, peculiarly complimenting the opposition at the expense of a fellow Democrat? Why don't they just differ with Obama on the issues at hand instead of dissing him and propping up McCain? VERY TELLING TO ME. . .something's amiss . . .


:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[Swamp Rat]

380. This topic should be 'RELENTLESSLY DISCUSSED'

Amen! And done with civility too.

[Grinchie]

381. Don't forget Contextomy!

CONTEXTOMY

Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent. <1>

Never forget the DLC's Complicity/Failure to Act when Al Gore was attacked in 2000.

If Hillary Clinton could use her connections to quash her involvement in FEC Fraud in 2001, you know they could have stood up for Al Gore, but of course, he moved toward that disturbing "Populist" side of the Democratic party, which the DLC loathes.

Out with the DLC, and the horse they rode in on.

[Voice for Peace]

152. I think more semicolons; but what do I know?

[defendandprotect]

127. Wouldn't it be nice if our corporate-press asked that question of HRC . . . ???

And other questions about DLC, etal ---

Does HRC want to continue to claim that she wasn't voting for war when there are statements
by her at the time which make it clear that she knew that it was a vote for war?

[EFerrari]

12. Wow! Before I even saw your OP, it has 12 votes.

:wow:

Thank you, Swampisimo.

[Swamp Rat]

16. De nada.

:hi:

Please keep it kicked, if you please.

[EFerrari]

18. Of course.

:kick:

[saltpoint]

51. You are MILES ahead of me, sfexpat2000. I was 38th!

But it came from the heart.

[Yael]

17. I have no doubt in my mind that the DLC stands firmly with the PNAC clan.

[Swamp Rat]

20. No do I, as the OP demonstrates.

Is this the America we want?

[harun]

351. The only difference in my eyes is the spelling (n/t)

[immoderate]

21. Stunning! K&R, thank you Swampy.

You don't start a lot of threads. But I know that if you do it's going to be big. I previously said I would support whomever the Democrat's nominate, but this requires some thought.

--IMM

[Swamp Rat]

40. My wish is for DUers (and everyone else) to really think before voting.

Thanks. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

128. Many DUers won't give this any thought because they have no concerns. . .

about the DLC --- leave alone PNAC --

they don't seem to be paying attention to what the DLC really means ---

In the main, they don't "get it" . . . !!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Wes Clark blew the whistle on PNAC the last time around

And he was ridiculed at the time by the media for attacking the plans of a then little reported on academic think tank. Clark has been a vigerous opponent of PNAC's plans, and he is certain that Hillary Clinton, who he knows personally, has worked with closely, and currently advises, does not subscribe to them.

[Swamp Rat]

47. I am glad he blew the wistle.

Nevertheless, Hillary is a DLC Team Leader of an organization, founded a PNACer, that is ideologically tied to PNAC. Not only does her position require her to acknowledge the mission goals of the DLC, but also agree with them. There are no degrees of separation, and the DLC and PNAC have a symbiotic connection.

If you have concrete evidence to the contrary, I want to see it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Your logic is connect the dots

I don't fault anyone for speculation, all of us speculate, but that is all your OP is. It is not even possible to conclusively say without research that all of the original signers of PNAC's original position papers still support the policies then advocated. John Edwards was a cosponsor of the IWR and supported the Iraq invasion, but I fully believe that he sincerely changed his position on that.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was never a member of PNAC herself and neither was Bill. You are indirectly linking her. From what I remember PNAC initially was started as an attempt to push then President Clinton into adapting PNAC's aggressive military agenda and it was a failure in doing so. PNAC was only given new political life by the arrival of a new Republican Administration under Bush.

In regards to Hillary now she certainly advocates nothing remotely like PNAC's agenda. The nuanced differences between the foreign policy she and Barack Obama now advocate are so nuanced as to often make them hard to distinguish between.

For me though my comfort level regarding Hillary Clinton and PNAC is enhanced on a personal level by my now knowing Wesley Clark personally. No, I can't say that we have a close relationship but over the last four years I have come to know him better as a person. The point is that I've spent a lot of time around Wes by now, he is a real person to me, and if anything I respect him even more the more I have been around him.

Clark remains a bitter foe to PNAC's plans and he tells his supporters that he can personally vouch for Hillary on that also. It's not that often that I receive assurances on something as important as this from someone who I trust so close to the horse's mouth. It works for me, you will have to reach your own judgment.

[Lena inRI]

108. WHY DOESN'T THE HORSE JUST SAY IT HERSELF?

I don't think even General Clark can vouch for Hillary's view on PNAC UNTIL she PUBLICLY admits her IWR vote was a mistake and denounces the PNAC philosophy.

She's not EXEMPT from these public statements just because General Clark VOUCHES FOR HER.

Heck, at least John Edwards publicly announced his mistake for IWR vote.

And I'm a hardcore former Clarkie saying this!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[elleng]

189. Lena, why are you so unreasonable?

'denounces the PNAC philosophy,' when these characters here have made no association whatsoever, except for their own pretend logic.

Do you remember how Senator McCarthy operated? How different from what's happening here.

[Lena inRI]

233. Elleng (ex-Clarkie also, yes?). . .

. . .where are you going with this when:

1--I replied directly to Tom Rinaldo's comment and yet you, not him who forever ignores my commentary, are replying in this tangent about McCarthyism tactics of the OP. I'm not the OP author so ask Swamp Rat your question comparing his OP with McCarthyism, not me.

2--And I still ask of all 3 of you--Senator Clinton, Tom, and you---why hasn't Senator Clinton publicly admitted her vote on the IWR was a mistake? Will she publicly denounce the PNAC philosophy, that she already alluded to as the right-wing conspiracy aimed at her as First Lady?

Where's Hillary's forthrightness? Why do I have to take General Clark's vouching for her on her IWR and PNAC views?

Get it out there. . .clear the air. . .speak TO US. . .NOT THROUGH YOUR SURROGATES!

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[elleng]

243. Yes its me, Lena.

I know you're not the OP author, but to appear to go along with what i think is foolish, that was my pov.

I don't support anyone who's running now. Fact that she hasn't said 'it was a mistake' is of no import to me. There are MANY possible reasons/excuses. You don't have to take General Clark's word. But the issue seems 'old' to me.

Peace

Ellen

[Lena inRI]

271. Peace to you, too, elleng. . .

. . .I miss the Clarkie camaraderie we all had in 2003-04. Haven't read Totally Committed on the boards here in a long while. . .hope she is just disillusioned and not having any health issues. . .wish her the best if you talk with her elsewhere.

Yeah, well I respect your non-committed stance. . .take your time or heck, write in the person of your choice if voting your conscience is your set of values. I judge you not.

I'm finally for Senator Obama after going from waiting patiently for General Clark, then hoping for Al Gore, then supporting Dennis Kucinich until he dropped out(to no one's surprise).

I saw Obama in person here in RI. That clinched it for me. His reasoning, personable delivery, and, yes, his forthrightness bold me over that day, and since, as I paid closer attention to his campaigning.

Actually, some of Obama's characteristics remind me of General Clark. . .mainly I like both men's sound reasoning abilities so evident in the way they speak to their crowds.

So Obama/Clark 2008 would be the ticket to die for, IMHO !

Oh well, hang on tight. . .we've got quite a ride ahead of us. . .

:hi: :hug: :hi: :hug: :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

327. I have not consciously been ignoring your commentary Lena, honest

I didn't see your reply to me above until late last night and by that time, to be frank, I was not motivated enough to kick this thread against to reply since it had already fallen off the front page.

In reply to your question, here is something I just went back and pulled out of my DU Journal:

What counts for me is that knowing what she does not, had she known that then, she would not make that same vote. That's what counts for me also with the apologies that Edwards and Biden and Kerry and Dodd and Daschle etc. made. Not the "I'm sorry" part but the lesson learned part.

There are two reasons why Hillary doesn't make you all happy by saying "I'm sorry" too, and neither has anything to do with her being happy with the way things turned out, or with her being a cold and remorseless human being.

The first will sound like a meaningless technicality to many I am sure but I think it isn't to her. Hillary feels like the IWR gave the appropriate tools for a President to appropriately use in pursuing America's national security interests. The IWR was NOT a vote to go to war with Iraq, it was a vote that gave authority for the U.S. President to ultimately go to war with Iraq if Iraq did not allow U.N. Inspectors back into Iraq with the freedom needed to confirm that Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions that forbid Iraq from having or acquiring WMD's. Had the IRW actually been a vote approving an invasion of Iraq I have no doubt that Hillary would apologize for that decision.

The fact is that the leverage that the IWR was designed to bring to bear on the U.N. to force Iraq back into compliance with U.N. resolutions worked as designed. Inspectors returned to Iraq and were well on their way to proving that Iraq had no WMD's. Technically Clinton thinks it was an appropriate policy that went to Hell when George W. Bush unilaterally threw that policy out the window and invaded Iraq anyway. The IWR in her opinion was a useful hard diplomacy tool that accomplished it's goal before Bush subverted the process.

The fact that Bush went ahead and subverted the process even though U.N. inspectors were in place with full access to anywhere they wanted for inspections and were finding no threat from Iraq is where the process jumped the rails. Knowing that now Clinton would not again make the mistake of allowing George Bush a chance to do that again if the clock could be reversed.

When we invaded Iraq we did so with a lot of powerful high tech weapons as well as a standing army put under the command of our President, that Congress voted to fund and/or acquire, passing multiple defense budgets AFTER Bush took office. Congress gave the Commander in Chief weapons that could kill millions because they were believed to be appropriate weapons to have in America's arsenal, knowing full well that George W. Bush was president and that he could use most of those weapons at a near moments notice if he decided to order that as Commander in Chief. There usually is a level of trust that our President won't subvert the best interests of our nation and the resolutions of Congress to recklessly use weapons of war unless they must be used. There never had to be an invasion of Iraq after the U.N. inspectors returned to that nation. Bush invaded anyway.

Clinton and Kerry and Biden and Edwards and Dodd and many other Democrats made the wrong judgment about George W. Bush, but none of them are sorry they passed a defense budget that gave him the means to wage war, though they are indubitably sorry that he misused them. Hillary Clinton regrets that George W. Bush misused the IWR, but knowing what she did then she feels her actual vote made sense at the time. Now she knows that it didn't.

The other reason is another that many may not agree with. I believe Clinton thinks that the Democratic candidate for President will match up better against McCain if s/he can argue "Sure, I understand that the U.S. has to be prepared to be strong in defense of our security. I voted for the right policy but the wrong president implemented it. When I am President I will be strong enough to keep the U.S. safe without starting wars that could and should be avoided.

All of the above is not my personal position, but I can understand it. I score one big one for Obama on the IWR and then I move on to looking at other considerations also. On whole I end up as a Clinton supporter.

[Lena inRI]

340. Thanks for your reply, Tom. . .

. . .your answers show thorough attention. . .I'm guessing that is why you don't answer always. . .very time-consuming to reply so thoroughly.

Well, unlike for you, Hillary's IWR vote sticks in the craw of my throat. . and her attempt to JUSTIFY it, as you so thoroughly explain,just makes me gag moreso.

How could she, for one second, believe the IWR was NOT an approval for war, knowing full well the PNACers were behind it, the same radical right conservatives who were attacking her all her years in the White House, and the NIE document says so in plain English. I, an impotent voting citizen, knew this, and my Senators Reed and Chafee knew this and voted no.

IMHO, Hillary's IWR vote shows lack of judgment, either on her own as she feared a weak image on defense for her run for POTUS, or worse yet, as a result of her listening to political advisers that believe the same. WHY DIDN'T SHE LISTEN TO GENERAL CLARK BACK THEN?

Finally,now during her 2008 run for POTUS, her saying she REGRETS her IWR vote is a chasm apart from her saying I'm sorry. . .she refuses to take responsibility for her bad judgment. . .it's not her fault. . .yeah, right. The goody-two-shoes argument.

I'd swallow this BS if she were just running for U.S.Senate again but not for POTUS and CinC. I want to have a CinC who, like Truman said, practices the principle behind "the buck stops here."

And as for my questions about her current association with PNACers and the DLC, start with her close dependency on Mark Penn. Course you didn't have time to address that whole issue. . .but, IMHO again, the "birds she's flocking together with" have just about taken me from gagging to GASPING for air. . .the truth.

Peace to you, Tom. . .hope to see you supporting Obama sooner than later. . .as the good Democrat you've always been on the boards.




:hi: :kick: :hi: :kick: :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

383. "Hillary Clinton regrets that George W. Bush misused the IWR."

Her excuses are not good enough. Thanks for the thoughtful reply Tom Rinaldo.

Say 'hi' to Wes Clark, and tell him he should consider working for an Obama administration as well. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

384. "Hillary Clinton regrets that George W. Bush misused the IWR."

Her excuses are not good enough. Thanks for the thoughtful reply Tom Rinaldo.

Say 'hi' to Wes Clark, and tell him he should consider working for an Obama administration as well. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

129. I'm sure Clark believes what HRC says . . .

[elleng]

194. Tom,

THANK YOU!

[biggerfishsmallpond]

23. Kicked

thanks for the research

[Melinda]

24. God Damn, Swampy; all this and a bag of chips!

I promise, from this day forward, to never again view you as just a creative provocative poster of purty (albeit insightful) pictures!!

:yourock:

[Swamp Rat]

43. LOL!

Thanks. :hi:

[elleng]

198. You should,

though; provocateur, just what we all need right now.

[dmr]

28. Primarily why she was never a consideration

for my vote in the first place; and my son's as well, who will vote for the first time this election.

There was a time, long ago, I had a great deal of respect for her, but as I learned more and more, that respect went south.

Since Obama wasn't a first choice for me either, I decided to give them both a fair shake. Watching and listening to her campaign, on top of what I already knew about her, any shred of respect I still had for Hillary turned into disgust. This saddens me, because I do not publicly state bad things about any Democrat (the exception being Joe Lieberman, but he's no longer a Dem anyway). I sometimes wonder if she ceded the Democratic nomination to Obama, if she wouldn't pull a Lieberman.

After the Coup 2000, I said Bush* just had to win at any cost, though at the time, I wasn't sure why. This is how I see Hillary. I don't trust her. Look at the disaster we are facing after Bush's* 'at-any-cost-coup' did to this country. If Hillary continues - damn - I just don't want to think about the repercussions.

Edited for grammar

[lyonn]

382. It's sad isn't it, so many of us stood strong behind Bill during

his impeachment troubles, and that includes much respect for Hillary during all of that turmoil. They are not showing the same respect for fellow Dem presidential contenders and their backers that are/were a real threat to Hillary's goal of winning the presidency. I expected a class act from her and Bill, so far they have shown no class.

[dmr]

385. Know what you mean, but

I don't regret standing by Bill because that was truly an expensive witch hunt. I understand why Bill lied, but wish he hadn't.

I do agree with you about thinking them a class act. Boy, was I ever wrong - thankfully we now have access to information via the internet that enables us to to analyze information and be more informed.

I no longer trust either one of them. From now on, no matter what they do, even if it is for the good, I will always suspect it was done to one way or another, enrich them further, and also wonder at what expense to something or someone else. Frankly, that is exactly how I view the Republicans.

[Blue State Bandit]

29. Will Marshall signed PNAC letter to Congress in 2005!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

[Swamp Rat]

42. Yes he did.

See post #39. ;)

[defendandprotect]

134. Note Condi: "generational commitment" . . . and again use of "think tanks" . . .

When we question the influences over government, certainly we have to consider the unholy power of
right-wing think tanks -- as made obvious by the PNAC.

Power should be within government --- moving from the people ---

Meanwhile, I wouldn't mind seeing some of this power build up thru a new alliance of liberal
forces --- FEMINISTS, LABOR, PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS ---

What would be wrong with that --- ???

This drives me crazy that they have never come together to fight the "white male caucus" and
patriarchy --- !!!!!!

[bhikkhu]

30. Excellent food for thought, but for some basic issues...

By any measure or definition, the USA functions as an empire. The current global economic and energy structure is built around it at the moment. But it is also in the beginnings of terminal decline due to its economic and energy related foundations...changes to the status quo are more likely to come from necessity rather than intent. PNAC likely would cling to what could be salvaged by military means, regardless of the cost to the rest of the world: what has been called the "King of Hell" strategy. All other strategies are managed decline.

Police states do not last, not even for a generation in most cases. Claims can be made for the Soviet Union or other similar countries, but it is also fairly easy to say that the conditions of individuals in these states were most affected by consistent economic mismanagement, and less by inconsistent application of police state control. I don't believe that any slide into a general police state is possible here, and any attempts would necessarily be local, temporary, and frustrated.

So one can always bandy about various scenarios for the future, but it is increasingly evident that ours will be guided by inescapable geologic realities. And then there are the two basic scenarios to choose from: King of Hell or managed decline. To me, this is the choice between Democrat or Republican, at the moment. The power and stability that PNAC has sought is less feasible now than at any time since the notion arose, and world leaders grasping for the impractical, like a current president who needn't be named, quickly find their country hobbled and unable to accomplish much of anything.

[Swamp Rat]

49. "ours will be guided by inescapable geologic realities.

I agree 100%. I know this because I work in a related scientific field of inquiry. ;)

[defendandprotect]

146. While not very powerful, it looks to me like Europe and Latin America are trying to

break the lock we've had over their countries ---
The European Union is an obvious move to curtail US power -- including economic.
All that we have claimed post-WWII has been done thru power plays, intimidation, violence --
and these people have been our victims -- and more....

I certainly don't see that the PNAC is "less" powerful -- McCain is talking about a "hundred year war" . . . Condi about a "generational commitment."

The PNAC were fortunate enough to get their "new Pearl Harbor" . ..
And Star Wars is still being financed --- a way to secure the highest hill ---
the militarization of the skies/space.


Evidently, we are now learning, we THREATENED various allies into joining with us in our wars on Iraq/Afghanistan ---

Granted, America still has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons --- some of them traveling about the country rather mysteriously this past year! ---
and we've always had "nuke 'em" minded right-wingers in high places in America.

You may be right about actual dictatorships lasting about 40 years . . .
but we are facing new technology -- ways to rob people of their own intelligence/will.
And you are echoing, "It couldn't happen here!" ---
I wouldn't want to so tempt fate ....

America has suffered political violence over the past 50 years as "Operation Gladio" was brought home to us. That included the CIA's supporting Senate/House candidates with slush funds paid out thru the Howard Hughes Corporation, which was partially a front for the CIA. Sen. Strom Thurmond and Sen. Gerald Ford are two of the names which have come tumbling out.

Add to that that the computers began coming in during the mid-1960's and you have quite a formula for stealing elections and keeping right-wingers in power in America and all over the world.
See: Votescam, The Stealing of America
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

I don't see any reason not to be very worried ---

[bhikkhu]

224. True, but your worry is one of their greatest tools.

I go back to a conversation with a friend years ago about the nature of government. For the most part we don't experience government directly, and would be hard pressed to prove its existence based upon solid physical evidence. Yet we have a mental model of what it is and manage our business accordingly. And what would happen if we all woke up in the morning and decided to discard this model? Sending our taxes to Washington is about the only thing we do in "recognition" of their power, and if we ceased the entire thing would evaporate almost overnight - there would be nothing the Federal government could even attempt to do, except resort to violence, threats of violence, and rule by fear.

This is why police states last such a short time, technology or not. Government requires consent to be governed. Governmental misbehavior creates popular discontent, which creates dissent, which leads to replacement of the government. Greater efficiencies of control or coercion do not change the equation. So while I am a great fan of Naomi Klein and a student of history I am not afraid of political shenanigans. The next few years they will be hard pressed just to keep this boat floating, much less engage in police-state extensions of control.

PNAC spoke of this as the New American Century, when we would solidify and expand our role as the global leader in all good things. When it was written they believed it to be a reachable goal. At the moment, the wreckage is almost complete. When it was written much of the world might have thought the goal to be possible and even desirable; now, the reverse is true. If government exists by the consent of the governed, empire is even more dependent upon the same type of consent. That is what we have lost under *, and the best military in the world can't win it back.

[defendandprotect]

368. Actually, politics/government effects our lives every moment of our lives . . . !!!

Unfortunately, people are finding their bridges falling down ---
and that the FED is using tax payer dollars to bail out investment banks in an unprecedented move while 25% of American children are living in poverty in America.
We have a political party in control of America over the last decades which has argued that our
Department of Education be shut down.

Inflation in terms of food prices and skyrocketing gasoline for our gas-guzzlers --

As we all know, most of the taxes are removed from taxpayer hands thru their paychecks . . .
many people get returns at the end of the year --- but the majority of taxes are WITHHELD.
So, what you are suggesting is meaningless.

As I've said before, I don't see that the oppression of Africa has lasted but 40 years . . .
it looks like we've been working for genocide ther.

Same with Iraq -- which we've been bombing now for 20 years?
Looks like we're working for genocide there, as well.

How long has patriarchy lasted --- ??? More than 2,000 years --- More than 60,000 years?
When did the violence against females begin?

How long the pain and suffering and violence in Cambodia?
In Vietnam --- you think they've recovered?
In Chile?
In Haiti?

You don't think that retina scans and ID chips will change your life and your behavior?
How about repeated use of electric shock treatments as we did to the Vietnamese?
Have you seen our police lately? They look more like Gestapo!
Read anything about plans for Homeland Security?

You're connecting PNAC with "good things" . . . ??
I think you'd better read their agenda again.

Now -- certainly I also agree with Noam Chomsky that fear works to the benefit of the neo-cons . . . however, let's not put ourselves into denial of all that's real, either.

[bhikkhu]

398. PNAC's "good things" are as they advertise, entirely domestic.

That is, the rest of the world is considered to be expendable, or a resource for our use.

You could easily narrow the "good" more and say, the PNAC agenda is not for the benefit of this country as a whole, but only those who deserve benefit. Which, the way things go, is entirely up the powers that be. So then you have a police state relying upon fear and its control of resources to control a population and require consent.

My problem with fearing the dire consequences of this is, essentially, that is what we have in most countries in the world right now, including this one. It can always get worse, but there is a some inevitable long term balance to the consent/control equation provided by the unquantifiable character of a populace.

Not that I am happy about all this...but the biggest changes sometimes take the smallest steps (or any of a number of other unhelpful sayings apply)

[defendandprotect]

401. PNAC is a vile organization, with nothing "good" about it . . .

Occasionally, you sound happy about it --- ????

I think we have to recognize the truth about the PNAC --- and stop them.

[bhikkhu]

403. Here we must invoke the "Hitler" clause

That is, all arguments sooner or later end up either Hitler analogies or Nazi accusations...

For my part, I would only say that organization such as PNAC, the KKK, the Nazis, Hitlers, etc, all include in their agenda things which can be seen as "good". I have not talked about whether such organizations are good or not, but whether they have at least some good intentions.

The problem usually arises when you find good intentions are for the benefit of only a few, and require "theft from many to provide for the few". If you are one of the few, that may look perfectly fine. If you want to recognize the "truth" of PNAC you first should recognize the realities of the global political/economic structure we reside in, and our place in it. Structurally, "theft from the many to provide for the few". It is not a PNAC construction, but their agenda is to protect and continue it at all cost. I think that their failure is inevitable, and I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

But I am also realistic about what that means. Spring is here now, and it is the perfect time to put one's mind to gardening - I have leeks, tomatoes (under cover), lettuce and peas started, and a large plot prepared for the late-spring veggies.

[Swamp Rat]

405. And I'll invoke the "Santa" Clause,

in order to kick this thread, and post this silly pic even though it is Spring. :D

[defendandprotect]

407. Bye . ..

[babylonsister]

32. Way to connect those dots, Swampy! Good job! nt

[shadowknows69]

35. K+R Swampy

[Marie26]

37. False: "The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall"

So first you set up the connection as Hillary - DLC - PNAC, which is already three degrees of Kevin Bacon. But even that connection is false. The headline says that Marshall is a member of PNAC, but the actual text doesn't say that at all. Marshall isn't a member of PNAC, & it's pretty misleading to pretend that he is. This is a pretty irresponsible post IMO. But then, since Hillary Clinton is known to be the source of all evil, the connection is already pretty self-evident to most people here.

[Swamp Rat]

39. Will Marshall is a member of PNAC. The proof is right here on the PNAC website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

[The Doctor.]

56. Regardless of Marshal, her association with the DLC is enough...

If you've ever criticized the DLC, you need to reconsider support for Clinton.

[paulk]

101. Proof?

"non overlapping signatory"

Marshall signed a letter or two - that doesn't make him a "member".

btw - did you read the letters he signed? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed in them?

[Marie26]

102. You're right

Marshall did sign on to a PNAC letter, but he's not a listed member of the organization. Your post mentions his affiliation to PPI, which is a totally separate group, and other "PNAC-associated" groups, which is not the same thing as being a member of PNAC itself. It's probably a distinction without much difference, though. It's good to know that Marshall has a hawkish/interventionist slant. But I still think it's a leap to conclude Hillary's a neocon based on such a long degree of association. Based on this criteria, you could say that every politician who's ever been in the DLC is a neocon PNAC supporter.

[defendandprotect]

155. If I sign onto a PNAC letter, I would consider myself support their causes . . ..

[defendandprotect]

156. If I sign onto a PNAC letter, I would consider myself supporting their causes . . ..

Or are we trying to suggest that, like Hillary, Will Marshall didn't know what he was signing?

Maybe he had no knowledge of the PNAC agenda --- ?????

[Marie26]

310. It's not that.

"like Hillary"? Has she signed some PNAC letter that I'm unaware of? I've got no interest in defending Will Marshall, but there are other Democrats who have signed the leter, like Albright & Holbrooke. If you read the letters, they don't deal w/Iraq or the Middle East at all. But I do think it's a huge stretch to go from PNAC to Marshall to DLC to Clinton. It is a whole lot like playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. If you play that game, almost any Dem can be connected to the PNAC boogy-man. Obama has DLC advisors on his campaign, so under this standard, that would make him a neocon as well.

[defendandprotect]

363. "It's not that" . . . but it could be --- !!!

The point is that Hillary is DLC --- that's enough for me not to support her --- never will
support the DLC and certainly DUers here and every Democrat should understand how dangerous the DLC alone really is ---

That's enough . .. !!!

Look, one way or another, we've been infiltrating the ME for centuries ---
and as OIL became more important --- especially to conduct WAR --- the ME and its OIL became
more of a target.
See: "Three Days of the Condor" --- it plays on TNT every once in a while --
Robert Redford/Faye Dunaway/Cliff Robertson
Quite appropo to this conversation --

And. . .
Like Zig Brezinski's story of the US having "gone into Afghanistan 6 months before -- 6 months before!!! --- the Russians went in -- in order to BAIT the Russians into Afghanistan . . .
in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience" .... we have to understand the arming
of right-wing religious fanatics and how we have used them . . .
America/CIA created the Taliban thru ISI/Pakistan -- we invented the Taliban/AlQaeda.

THAT M.O. also includes Israel --
Nixon armed right-wing religously fanatical Israel, suffocating liberal-peace loving Israel.
For a long time now, it's been said that you can't actually tell the difference between Israeli
weapons production and American weapons production --- "because they are so closely intertwined" . . . !!!!

We're using Israel to attack much of the ME ---

Meanwhile, I don't think it's a "stretch" to see that the DLC is connected to PPI . . .
and that there are connections between PPI and Marshall and the DLC ---

Hillary is part of DLC leadership ---
That's enough!

We have some really serious concerns with fascism and neo-Nazis in America ---
and I think diverting to Kevin Bacon . . . who seems to be on a lot of minds here for some reason . . . is a distraction.

If you want a formula for neo-Nazism . . . certainly the PNAC is it --- !!!




PS: This M.O. isn't new . . . post WWII, we brought Nazis and their families -- totaling 58,000 of them --into America and put them into the CIA, the FBI, NASA and various other parts of our government. See: Operation Paperclip

[Swamp Rat]

180. "It's good to know that Marshall has a hawkish/interventionist slant."

Yes, and I am glad you have given it some thought. I do not know to what depth Hillary Clinton is involved in the inner workings of the DLC and PPI, but since she holds the title, "Team Leader," I assume she just hasn't blindly signed on to these organizations for so many years without knowing their mission principles. This applies to any Democratic Senator or Representative involved with the DLC and PPI. Lieberman comes to mind.

[AntiFascist]

360. On the PPI website it notes that PPI was established to function as...

Bill Clinton's "idea mill". Will Marshall was a founding member. If you read some of his foreign policy writings from the website you will note that they advocate a strong, aggressive approach to transforming the Middle East, INCLUDING the use of preemptive force. How much more does it have to be like PNAC before you understand the connection? Empire-minded Democrats don't call themselves neoconservative because they already have the moniker "neo-liberal". They want us to conclude that establishing the US as an aggressive empire is the "neo" way in foreign policy.

[elleng]

203. and Albright and Holbrooke.

You are beyond stretching.

[JTFrog]

84. Fail. n/t

[Marie26]

106. Success! n/t

[JTFrog]

304. Obviously another Opposite Day in HillaryWorld.

I thought you had to be able to read to play here.

[Marie26]

308. No, just insult people

You should be fine.

[Marie26]

309. dupe nt

[Emit]

187. Here

Others have been discussing the DLC-PNAC connection for years. They have been described as Hawkish Paleoliberals by Michael Lind, who, himself, has gone from liberal (in his college years) to neoconservative (in graduate school and directly afterward) to radical centrist (through the early 2000s), and back to a liberal (present). Some of this info, while lengthy, might help:

PNAC influence on the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
Posted by IkeWarnedUs on Fri Jan-16-04 07:08 PM

The neo-cons have been putting their cabal together for many, many years and they have covered a lot of bases. They developed unholy alliances in the media, military, foreign governments, corporate world and have taken the Republican party to a place many traditional Republicans find uncomfortable. And, through the DLC, have infiltrated the Democratic party as well.

Will Marshall was the policy director for the DLC and is the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which was formed to create policy for the DLC. The DLC and PPI are very intertwined. Al From, DLC founder, is the chairman of PPI. The DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC). The press e-mail for both DLC and PPI is [e-mail]

Will Marshall was one of the select people who actually signed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements on post war Iraq, along with a few frequent Blueprint authors (the DLC magazine).
PNAC has been issuing official statements since it's inception, each signed by about 1-3 dozen select people including Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, William Kristol
and Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group). Mr. Marshall doesn't just agree with them, he is intimately involved with them.

Mr. Marshall is also an advisor to the Committee to Liberate Iraq (CLI), who's mission is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people. Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda, which it does very well. CLI is loaded with PNAC'ers, including 3 of the board of directors.

Although Will Marshall (and the rest of the DLC/PPI) has been pushing a slightly sanitized, politically correct neo-con-lite agenda for years, it is just recently that he came out of the closet with his official PNAC/CLI affiliations. The PNAC statements he signed were released in March 2003 and CLI was formed in the fall of 2002. Like many of the neo-cons, he seems to be more brazen and open than ever before.

I'm sure at least some of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called) joined on for funding support and without really appreciating what the DLC's agenda and affiliations really are. Most of the DLC's message is spun to sound like it challenges Bush, but look at the core messages and you find them more closely aligned with the neo-cons than it appears on the surface.

When you realize this, Congressional Democratic support for the Bush administration's policies (out of control military budget, tax cuts, rampant privatization and corporatization and war, war, war) makes more sense. Btw, membership in the New Democrat Network (what the DLC membership is called) is cheap (about $50.00) but not easy. Prospective members are thoroughly screened. Here is a description of their process from Robert Dreyfuss in the 4/23/01 issue of The American Prospect (link below):

"To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, (Simon) Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

Here is some of what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11:

America's New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926


Here is one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


And a more recent piece:

Activists Are Out of Step
By Al From and Bruce Reed Originally in LA Times 7/3/03

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=85&subid=65

------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Richard Perle's lips move.

It is difficult to make the American public understand the danger in all of this and why the DLC must be exposed. Most people have never even heard of PNAC or the DLC.

DU'ers have the advantage of understanding what these organizations are and what power and influence they hold. Because of that advantage, we have a responsibility to share our knowledge and use our numbers to expose these people for what they are.

The New Democrat Network directory includes not just Washington Dems, but state and local politicians as well. Please, check the directory and see if any of your elected officials are on it. Make them declare their allegiance either to the powers that fund them or the voters who elect them.

Links:

DLC website: http://www.ndol.org /

PPI website: http://www.ppionline.org /

CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml

PNAC Iraq statements:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

How the DLC Does It
By Robert Dreyfuss The American Prospect 4/23/01

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

New Democrat Network directory

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=3146
***********************************************************************************************

Neo Conservatives and the Strauss Connection
HERSH’S REPORT GAVE THE UNFOLDING STORY of bureaucratic competition and deception campaigns a new philosophical twist. Not content to denounce a neo-conservative cabal for the disinformation campaign that helped them sell the Iraq war to the Bush Administration, the Congress and finally the American and British publics, critics now drew the philosophical pedigree of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon group into the debate. Quickly the members of the Cabal were dubbed the “Leo-Cons” in The New York Times to highlight their connection to political philosophy of Leo-Strauss—an émigré German professor of political philosophy who had taught at the University of Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s.

But other political pedigrees have been suggested for this group. Michael Lind for instance traced their roots back to the right wing Shactmanite faction of the American Trotskyite movement who entered the Democratic Party in the 1960s and then split with the Left over the Vietnam War. Many members of this group continued their rightward itinerary by rallying to Senator Scoop Jackson’s campaign against the New Democrats. Some finished with the Democratic Leadership Council, while others found a home in the Reagan and now the Bush fils administrations. Other critics who promote an “Iran-Contra bis” scenario for the current flap over intelligence trace the group back to the policy cabal that had promoted the Contra war against the Sandinistas and who had lost their power and influence in the second Reagan Administration as a result of the Iran-Contra hearings of the late 1980s.

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.2/mason.htm

[Swamp Rat]

207. Excellent, data-rich addition to this thread...

Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:

[Emit]

216. You are more than welcome, Swamp Rat

You've touched on a subject of considerable importance, IMHO, and one where we've crossed paths before on the DLC-PNAC connection.

Hillary Clinton to Chart Centrist Democratic Agenda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4939933

DLCer Will Marshall’s “Valuing Patriotism” (a lecture to Dems on putting the war on terror first)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4692970

Hillary Clinton is the DLC candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4721855

Democratic Leadership Council's 'The Third Way' Exposed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4655500



Here's another interesting thing I discovered only moments ago, having never really looked into Penn very much:

HRC chief strategist, Penn, helped reelect Menachem Begin, the first Likud PM of Israel...and Blair and Lieberman and Gore, who ended up firing him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5229058&mesg_id=5229058

[Swamp Rat]

225. Will Marshall wants us to become like them: neoconservatives (or 'neoliberals'). Select quotes:

"Since 9/11, patriotism has become the most potent “values issue” in U.S. politics. To compete in America’s heartland, Democrats must challenge Republicans’ claim to be the authentic voice of American patriotism.

The problem for Democrats is that an important part of their base—upscale white liberals—seems torn about the meaning of patriotism. Republicans are ruthlessly effective in exploiting this ambivalence. Questioning Democrats’ patriotism has been an ugly, but undeniably effective, GOP tactic from last year’s “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign against John Kerry to Karl Rove’s recent canard that liberals counseled “therapy and understanding” rather than retaliation in response to al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

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.

How can Democrats start healing this breach? For starters, they can speak out against colleges that ban military recruiters or the Reserved Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) from their campuses. Thirty years after the Vietnam War ended, such Ivy League campuses as Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth continue to ban ROTC. The message this sends is an offensive amalgam of class bias and anti-military prejudice: Service in the Armed Forces might be OK for dumb-ass Southerners or small-town kids with limited prospects, but it’s not a smart career move for our best and brightest. Democrats should demand an end to this disgraceful legacy of the Vietnam protest era, by denying public funding to schools that deny the Armed Forces access to their campuses ...

One way to put service on more young people’s radar screens is to replace the Selective Service System with a new National Service System. Such a system would sign up women, as well as men, and encourage them to volunteer for military or civilian service.

Another way to enlarge Ameri-Corps would be to link federal student aid to national service. Under such an arrangement, only those who agree to serve would be eligible to receive Pell Grants or to apply for subsidized student loans.

By putting the war on terror first, ending the party’s alienation from our military, and issuing a new call for service and sacrifice, Democrats can define a more compelling patriotism than the GOP’s chauvinist bluster.

Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4692970

______________

I wish I could kick all of your threads. ;)

[redqueen]

336. Great post. (nt)

[Grinchie]

414. Kudos on bringing it all together about the cancerous DLC

I was getting concerned that the DLC had been under the radar so long, as it was the DLC that made me look more closely at Hilary and the Company she keeps.

It is the DLC's policies that help keep labor on the low rung, forced to be wage slaves in order to get Health Care, while they pander to Corporate interests to pay their way. Republican-Lite

Im of the opinion that they think the populist side of the Democratic party is a bunch of Hippies and Dope Smokers that don't have any money. At this point in the game, they could not be more mistaken, and no matter how they try to sugar coat their message with sophisticated Corporate branding, they fail. We see through the Corporate message machine because we have been buried by it -- from McDonalds to Monsanto, and now Hilary.

America is tired of the lies and twisting of words by the Corporate lawyers, of which Hillary is a Corporate lawyer by trade.
Good Job Here --

[me b zola]

38. Thank you ,Swampy

I think that most Dems are unaware that the dlc & pnac exists, let alone their relationship with each other and the consequences for the Democratic party & the nation in general.


Excellent thread. :thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

41. Yes, most people simply do not know.

I can no longer stand idly by while we get distracted my minor or inane issues.

:hi:

[The Doctor.]

44. The corporate forces would never keep all their eggs in one basket.

Hillary's been the presumptive nominee for quite some time now, hence the viciousness in going after Obama. He was a variable they didn't account for. All the other contenders in the field were easily beaten.

They will not relinquish their hold easily.

[Swamp Rat]

48. Divide and Conquer

:hi:

[juno jones]

88. You're right, Doctor

I've felt for awhile now that McCain was going to get screwed. None of the repubs seem to like him. That horrible picture of the '* hug' shows just how they've played with the psychological imbalance of this tortured old man. I'm pretty sure that pic shows classic 'stockholm syndrome'. The final nail will be to run him for pres and allow him to lose horribly. If he wins, I think he will convientenly die of one of his many ailments, perhaps not unlike the first Pope John Paul, so his (inevitably)far more abhorrent running mate can rule.


I suspect the fix was in for Hillary. And now the American people have ruined that by going for Obama and changing the campaign nearrative.

[The Doctor.]

190. I might not characterize it that way, but I've felt the same.

I haven't seen "Brazil" in years.

I'll have to buy all three one of these days, great classics.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. K&R! I was aware of some of this but not all.

This is some heady stuff to think about. Thanks for posting!!!! :thumbsup:

:kick:

[saltpoint]

50. One had to decide in the 1990s if one could be a Clinton Democrat.

This RFK / Mario Cuomo / Bella Abzug Democrat decided he would stay an RFK / Mario Cuomo / Bella Abzug Democrat.

Bill Clinton gave us 8 unsatisfying years. I supported him as a person when Starr ran the shit train through town, but politically, there were significant shortcoming.

His wife wants the job, which puts both of them back in the Oval Office to triangulate to their hearts' content, and I'm just not into it.

The political misgiving I have about Hillary Clinton is indicated in this post, because it suggests that she is not a progressive, in addition to the obvious alignments with well-right-of-center Democratic affiliations.

And after the nearly decade of George W. Bush, a progressive is an imperative consideration. Obama, arguably the Senate's most liberal Senator, would be welcome salve to still painful wounds.

Exhaustive post, Swamp Rat, and I like the gravity of it in light of the difficult times.

Recommended.

[Swamp Rat]

52. Unfortunately, I have to leave to go eat now.

Well, it's not 'unfortunate' 'cuz I'm gonna traditional New Orleans Creole food at momenem's house. :9 :D

I hope to find y'all here later this evening discussing this important topic. :hi:

[saltpoint]

53. We may cross paths later, but in the interim enjoy what sounds like

a tremendous meal this evening!

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. Thanks for putting the icing and candles on the cake

How many people consider GHW Bush, Neil Bush, GWBush members of
a Crime Family? I do.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

65. Dialogue matters, ED. The OP puts up a frame of information about

the political alignments made in regard to a current Democratic candidate.

In that frame are pertinent questions about the identity and direction of our party, with a view toward what chances its central tenets have of advancing in the 111th Congress.

I thought this post was exhaustively impressive, especially in light of the "heavenly choirs" mocking your candidate visited upon the electorate, and the race-baiting FOX interview by "feminist" icon Geraldine Ferraro, and so forth.

Your response to the points raised in this thread would be of value. Your drive-by slam suggests there isn't much to defend your candidate with.

[paulk]

103. you've got to be kidding...

Will Marshall signs a couple of documents (documents whose sentiments I agree with, and you might too, if you read them). That, according to the OP, makes Marshall a member of the PNAC. Will Marshall belongs to a think tank called the PPI, which is associated with another think tank called the DLC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the DLC. Therefore Hillary Clinton supports the goals of the PNAC.

By that reasoning John Edwards, John Kerry, and Al Gore, DLC members all at one time, also support the goals of the PNAC. Not to mention all the other members, current and former, of the DLC, which is almost half of our current crop of Senators.

You call that "exhaustingly impressive"? That line of reasoning what get you an immediate "F" in any debate class.

[saltpoint]

107. O my. I'm real sorry I didn't do better on your test, teacher. Are you going

to call my folks?

[paulk]

163. maybe it's just that I expect better from some posters

just 'cause you support Obama doesn't mean you have to scoop half your fucking brains out of your head.

what the fuck is wrong with you people?

[saltpoint]

212. Goodness. What harsh diction.

[Swamp Rat]

230. Apparently you support PNAC: "documents whose sentiments I agree with"

I've read them.

............. No thanks.

I do not want to live in that kind of America.

[paulk]

324. more shallow reasoning

The document in question supports adding an additional 25k troops to the military to ease the burdon of continued deployments on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, something supported by both Democratic candidates. The other is a condemnation of the Chechen terrorist attack on a school in Beslan in 2004.

That's a long way from supporting the agenda of the PNAC...


What's your doctorate in?

Logic?

I hope not.

[Swamp Rat]

333. Ad hominem

We're done.

[paulk]

359. oh, come on

you can do better than that.

You post this crap - then when someone calls you on it you run away and hide?

[ExPatLeftist]

365. While you my agree with those specific issues...

...signing these documents also obviously indicates tacit support of the PNAC and what it stands for. In 2004 and 2005 when we ALL knew what the PNAC is.

I agree that based on this it is illogical to say that Hillary = PNAC. But I think that what it does show is a key debate within the Democratic Party: Basically, do we continue to fight those that we have fought for years now or do we get into bed with them?

In 2001, many of us here were appalled by what the PNAC had been up to for years, and that their man was now in the Whitehouse. The organization was outed as a neo-imperialistic organization set on global domination, and seemed to want a truly Orwellian reality for the world. Signing something, ANYTHING, from that organization, years later, even something vowing to save cute puppies, is not only an advocation of the document at stake, but also the organization from which it comes.

There are those that think that the Democratic party needs to move to the right to be successful in the US. Needs to appear more hawkish and be "stronger on national defense", etc. I disagree. And to take it as far as signing anything out of the fascistic PNAC is well beyond the pale, IMO. For me, the only proper tack for a true progressive with regard to the PNAC is at the very least ignoring them altogether to allow them to fade into obscurity. But I would personally prefer that they are attacked and outed, particularly given all the questions regarding 9/11 in connection with them.

Allying with the enemy in the name of political expediency means throwing out principle for practical power - but what good is that power when the principal has been thrown out? That, to me, makes no sense.

I would not sign the most benign of propositions on Aryan Nation letterhead.

That all being said, this reflects very poorly on Will Marshal, IMO. But just as I do not allow the "guilt by association" of Obama with reverend Wright (as overblown as that is), I will also not paint Hillary as guilty because she is associated with Marshal.

But the debate of moving to "the center" (i.e. further right) rages on. And I stand firmly against the DLC in that area.

[Kurovski]

66. Swamp is no fool.

:rofl:

Now, what exactly do you find foolish here, m'dear?

[saltpoint]

69. dupe

[mmonk]

57. The PPI will be calling the foreign policy shots if she is President.

To me, there's not enough difference to perceive it as real change. We might not get real change with Obama either but the chance is greater. I go on odds.

[LWolf]

58. The only scenario that includes a vote for HRC

on my part is a May 20th primary vote that seeks to even the scales and send us to a brokered convention, ending with a candidate that is neither HRC nor Obama, that I can happily vote for. It's an unlikely scenario.

I find Obama, while not formally associated with the dlc etc., to be well-aligned with their policies, and don't see him as a safer vote than HRC.

My primary vote, at this stage, will probably be a write-in; my GE vote will be 3rd party or a write-in.

[Oilwellian]

61. Great post Swampmeister...

and I have little doubt that Hillary is a neo-liberal and a fan of the new world order philosophy. When I was looking for video clips of Hillary on YouTube, I came across a clip of her congratulating Walter Cronkite for winning an award by the World Federalist Assc. or something like that and their philosophy mirrors PNAC. I don't know what shocked me more, seeing Hillary associated with it or Walter freaking Cronkite of all people. Needless to say, that's not what convinced me but it sure coincides with everything else you listed in your post. Two other things you can include is the secret religious cult she's involved in that includes lovely people like Brownback, Santorum, and other such freaks. Also her attendance at the Bilderberg meeting in Canada a couple of years ago. We all need to be wary of any government leaders who attend such secret meetings. Creepy as hell and I hope the era of Clinton is about to abruptly end. I'm posting the link to the video of Hillary praising a one world govt if you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmyYCMoT8c4

[Kurovski]

68. Very good additions, and thank you. (nt)

[Kurovski]

75. "When anyone speaks out for change...

The status quo will attack every time."

I'm paraphrasing Edwards from your link.

[Oilwellian]

83. Yes, that particular quote from Edwards...

was running through my mind when it was rumored he was planning to endorse Clinton. I was originally for Edwards but would have been very disappointed had he endorsed her. It certainly would have been a blow to his entire populist platform and proven him a phony.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

226. I saw that and it's chilling. When Cronkite talks about the U.S.

giving up some of our sovereignty and every one claps I can hardly believe what I'm seeing. Hillary is gushing and glowing over the whole thing. But I'm with you - I don't know if it was Hillary's involvement or Cronkite's that's so shocking. Thanks for the link...I think...

[Swamp Rat]

337. Excellent video George Oilwellian!

Thank you for posting it!. 5 Stars! ;)

Yes, I hope the New World Order Dynasty of presidents will end this year. :scared:

[Grinchie]

416. Thank You So Much Oilwellian! I learned so much from that Video!

I did not know that Hillary was on the board of WalMart -- Singlehandedly the worst Corporation when it came to destroying small business and Organized Labor.

The quote where Hillary states that she support raising the H1B Visa Quotas was especially eye opening, as I lived through that era and saw my liveliehood stolen from me and my collagues as we taught wave after wave of H1B visitor the ropes before they took all that knowledge back to their own country.

No matter how hard I dig, there is always more filth to be found when examining Hillary Clinton's past.

Great Job!

Out with them all!

[DerekJ]

62. K & R

:kick:

[Kurovski]

63. K&R.

And I think raising John McCain over Barack Obama was a test for her.

Call me crazy, I don't give a shit. I think praising McCain was an "oath" of sorts that she publicly uttered to the masters' satisfaction.

Bwahahaha!

I don't trust the Clintons very much at all.

[Laurab]

220. Okay, "Crazy" - and didn't Bill repeat her "oath"?

I mean, only Hillary and McCain are patriots, from what I understand. If they're listening to anyone, it's certainly not the Democratic Party.

I don't trust the Clinton's AT all, anymore, and you may be crazy, but that's what I've always loved about you. :loveya:

[Kurovski]

268. Yes he did. What next? Bridge foursome with Cindy and John?

That would be adorable. :hug:

[Laurab]

335. I don't know much about bridge, really.

Would there be room for Mark Penn, as well? It would be SO adorable, and not a surprise to me in the least.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where nothing about them would surprise me - reminds me of someone else that I don't want to be reminded of. I'm just so proud of my senator :banghead:

[Kurovski]

367. Penn can serve cocktails and canapes.

He's got to be good for something.

[Catherina]

64. Excellent post. Thank you n/t

[yurbud]

67. I got this screenshot from the DLC homepage the other day:

[Solly Mack]

70. K&R

[saltpoint]

71. Two things need kicking. This post and John McCain's ass.

[Kurovski]

73. Agreed.

:kick:

[dailykoff]

72. Hell yes. Hillary's "tough-minded internationalism" = bomb bomb Iran

and she's on board big time, see IWR, Kyl-Lieberman, torture pledge (last dem to sign), cluster bombs, $5 million "loan," McCain endorsement, etc. etc. etc.

[PerfectSage]

74. This is something I've wondered about.

In 92 she's a liberal. In 2000 she becomes a centerist dem/hawk on foreign policy to set up her senate career and a future run for the presidency. So maybe or maybe not. I think the way to answer the question is ask: Are the Clintons part of the Bush political crime family.

She would be a hell of alot better than McCain"Bush on Steriods".




GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

[Swamp Rat]

185. I agree. I'd take Hillary ANY DAY over McNuts.

[opihimoimoi]

76. We are Free to Reach 3....a Level having more Fun and Excitement w/o the Misery

of today...

Come, we work together

[seemslikeadream]

77. ..........

[anonymous171]

78. Scary stuff.

[dailykoff]

79. Great post!

Awesome in fact! :hi:

[shanine]

81. K & R

:kick:

[paulk]

82. this is one of the most poorly reasoned pieces of crap

I've seen on DU in quite some time.

Talk about guilt by association.

Did you flunk debate 101 or what?

[Ichingcarpenter]

85. That's why Hitler hung out with FDR all the time

That's why Jimmy Carter hung out with GHWbush all the time
going along with your faulty reasoning.

Swamprat is working on his doctorate right now

[paulk]

100. my faulty reasoning?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

91. K&R Swampy!!

Excellent post my friend!!

:yourock: :hi: :hug:

[David Zephyr]

86. Her coziness with Al From is troubling.

There is no question that there is overlapping interests between the two organizations, both monsters of the mega-corporations.

Add to that mix, Hillary's tight, tight relationship with Mark Penn and it just reaches critical mass.

Swamp Rat, your comments, your referenced points are eyebrow raising.

Edit: K&R.

[Kurovski]

87. Kick. (nt)

[WillyT]

89. Big K & R !!!

:bounce::kick::bounce:

:hi:

[juno jones]

90. K&R!

Thanks, Swamp Rat.

Between her links to the DLC, PPI, and that creepy ass 'Family' Cult (all interested should check out Jeff Sharlet's blog,
http://jeffsharlet.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html for pertinent articles)I really distrust her and do not think she represents our interests. None of this stuff in her background ever seems to get really discussed. Talk about a Manchurian Candidate.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

92. X-tra puntage!

:hi: :)

[kentj44]

93. well clinton was

born a rethug.don't think you can change.

[cliffordu]

95. Great work, Swampie!!!

K and R!!!!!

:kick:

[CatWoman]

96. a kick for Swampy

:kick:

[fascisthunter]

98. Very Good Post Swamprat (nt)

[Cha]

99. But, poor poor little hilary clinton

thought this was the way back to the white house..dead people don't matter. All that matters is "it's her turn"..she'll lie, cheat, and vote for wars based on bogus information if it makes her look tough enough to answer that ring a ding ding at 3am(which over priced consultant thought of that one?)

[brindis_desala]

105. I don't think Hillary subscribes to the Cheney/Rumsfeld

failed "shock and awe" version but the specter of "peak-oil" has made her susceptible to MIC's fears about peak oil for which the WOT is merely a proxy.

Most of the seemingly intractable problems America faces vis a vis the Middle East were inherited by a series of policy blunders starting with Kermit Roosevelt going off the reservation under the Eisenhower administration and undermining Iran's fledgling democracy then funding an islamic jihad against the Soviets and now the disastrous IWR.

What foreign policy strategists like Kerry, and Brzezinski are hoping is that Obama may have the skills to both restore our credibility among the Middle East's general population and convince our allies to help to extract us from this quagmire.

[defendandprotect]

158. Wait a minute on Brzezinsk....

Do you know that he relates that "WE went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in ....

in order to BAIT the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type

experience" --- ????

This is in his book --- he bragged about it on O'Reilly --- and repeats it often.

WE created the Taliban via the CIA thru ISI/Pakistan . . .
Taliban and AlQaeda being our inventions --
along the lines of recruiting and arming the most right-wing religiously fanatical to do your
dirty work ---

Interesting that Nixon did just that in arming right-wing religiously fanatical Israel which
has overcome traditional peace-loving liberal Israel --- in order to do our dirty work in the
ME. They say that Israel and US weapons production is so heavily intertwined that it is almost
impossible to tell the difference between them!

THUS I am disturbed that Brzezinsk is an adviser to Obama ---

[brindis_desala]

362. I already stated that was a policy blunder.

I was merely pointing out what Brzezinski sees in Obama. It was not meant as an endorsement, merely that Brz is against the IRAQ occupation and is NOT among the neocons.

[defendandprotect]

366. Brez may not be directly connected .... however, I think he has some

startingly neo-con ideas and Afghanistan is just one them ---

Again -- I object to his serving as an advisor in the Obama campaign ---

but I do find Obama very hard not to like ---

And, if nothing else changes, I hope to vote for him ---

[brindis_desala]

400. If you are eliciting my opinion I agree that

Brzezinski is a combustible entity and a rabid cold war hawk. That said, he claims to have mellowed and has a wider, much more balanced world view than the narrow perspectives allowed in our current think tanks. Plus he is not Obama's main foreign policy adviser. Neither Anthony Lake or Susan Rice (unlike Clinton's Talbott and Holbrooke) are in sync with the neo-cons. But yes, you have every right to be concerned about Brez's history.

[dusmcj]

109. Third Way originated in 1940s mystical fascism

I just ran across material on Evola (not Ebola) which presents him in dabbling in fairytale crap about the hero figure and strength and other navel-orbiting and brainfarts along the same lines as the Nazis did. Interesting reading, will do more and post.

good on ya, this is excellent material ! (did you post it in research forum)

[Swamp Rat]

441. I'd like to read what you find out

No, I didn't post this in the research forum. Should I?

[tnlefty]

110. Excellent post Swamp Rat!

I would've seen it earlier, but I had the Sammy Cam on. Glad to be rec. #74 and I hope that you enjoy your dinner. :hug:

[dusmcj]

111. pointing up the flaw of groups and parties...

this so clearly highlights the question at hand - is the survival of a particular group what's important, and they position themselves on issues in order to survive, or do we have a position on issues and form a group of those who think similarly ?

Let's make it clear: if the Democratic Party ceases to represent positions that are correct, then it will cease to exist in short order. The fact that its strategy for the last 4 years has been to use the word "fight" in emails (and unfortunately that Hillary has adopted that as a leitmotif of her campaign) means that the Republicans have already succeeded in making the Democrats react to them. If they were to have no tactical momentum of their own (i.e. tangible numeric success of their platform among the electorate) the only thing saving the Democratic Party would be that their positions on issues are clearly better in most cases than the Republicans'. Abandon that and I fail to see a reason why I should care about the Democratic Party. All that will happen is that a takeover of both parties by the reactionaries of the neocon/neoliberal community will finally result in the rise of a multiparty system.

I don't involve myself in politics to be part of a group and use that to make myself feel good. I involve myself in politics because The Personal Is Political and because politics affects every INDIVIDUAL, all of us, you and me. If a group of like-thinking individuals forms to participate in politics and decides to call itself a party, that's nice, but it's only worth its existence if it hews to its chosen principles and pursues them successfully. If it fails to do that, it serves no purpose.

Read and heed.

[w8liftinglady]

112. wow..what an eye-opener..meet the new boss..same as the old boss

[dusmcj]

113. personally I doubt that she supports it although she's not immune to being a proxy for it

BTW I don't think that Hillary innately is a neocon. First off, she's a woman, and not the shrapnel-eating shrew brand the neocons have fronted all the way back to Thatcher and Kirkpatrick. Instead, she's still a campus radical at heart, wanting to do the right thing and having a pretty good sense of what that is (which doesn't mean that she necessarily knows how to achieve it). I think the danger arises from her enmeshment with the DC and Master(bater)s of the Universe (tm) power elites (fedgov+Bilderburg/Trilat/Rockefeller/CFR) who are absolutely infested with neocon vermin (and are mostly old-school Nixonian vermin themselves). If she fails to notice when she's serving their interests, then she de facto becomes their proxy, i.e. tool. (Like for example, "I can't allow the Democratic Party to be seen as weak on security so I'll vote to authorize use of force in Iraq" - situational misapplication of a correct pragmatic impulse.) And of course their MO is tool use. So they'll be looking for her to come over to the Dork Side, and be eager to crow that she's arrived (which is of course a weakness of theirs - it's like they're constantly running around with their puds out demanding a blow job, or at least begging to be jerked off).

[Swamp Rat]

379. Points well worth considering.

I have pondered this myself, Hillary as proxy (and not innately a neocon). Nevertheless, we can just as easily be ruined as a nation by the neocons via the mistakes made by a good person (Hillary Clinton: the 'Campus Radical') due to choices based on political expediency.

[donkeyotay]

423. Yes, a good person may mold themselves to political expediency

And I think the assumption many make here is that Obama is not subject to the same pressures. I don't think many have looked very closely at his support - especially his early support - because they might realize that he will have to make the same concessions to power as Hillary or any other democrat. If democrats were free to be liberal, we'd have President Kucinich.

[Enrique]

114. nice shortcut to avoid thinking

just learn what letters are BAD: DLC, PNAC, PPI, AIPAC, etc. and link your hated candidate to those letters.

[dusmcj]

118. if the evidence is there you should consider doing exactly that

On the other hand if you want to argue about whether those organizations are bad you can post here and I'm sure you'll get some replies maybe containing some information that may be useful.

[crankychatter]

115. OUTSTANDING POST, thanks

yup

[elleng]

119. THIS IS SHOCKING, AND NEARLY LIBELOUS.

DUers, Folks, this writer is little more than a flame-thrower, his assertions are virtually groundless, and provide NOTHING of substance concerning HRC.

His operative assertion appears to be 'The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.'

We know Hillary and Bill, and whatever they may be, they are NOT PNAC, which is this: http://www.newamericancentury.org/, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.

Founded by Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Willian Kristol is present Chairman.



The writer here is clearly interested in dividing Democrats, and in that respect I'll say that HE is closer to neo-cons and PNACers.

Basing his feeble 'argument' on these assertions:

*founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC

*co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

*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


These are McCarthy-type smears, and we must not accept this 'Rat's assertions. STOP at this point, please, read his screed carefully, and make your own decisions about HRC, please.

[lonestarnot]

131. Scales are hard to get off, but you'll be ok.

[Moochy]

136. Do High Horses have Scales?

[lonestarnot]

144. Yes, they can get them in their eyes, just like humans.

[leftrightwingnut]

133. If you are right, Clinton must denounce the DLC and resign from it.

Perhaps her involvement with the DLC is pure political expediency, and she doesn't really believe in the founders' principles. Perhaps she was just jumping into a movement that was "reinvigorating the party." Reagan really scared the shit out of a lot of people, and I can understand how one might be motivated to join a new movement in the party that embraces principles that one could associate with neo-conservatism, especially if it gets one elected.

I cannot believe that HRC is that naive; she is certain to have done her research before joining this group. Her vote on the IWR doesn't help your case much.

I've read enough about the DLC to understand that mere association with it is a very, very, very, very bad thing at this particular point in history. (Yes, the worm has turned.) If you have any documentation that the DLC is not what it seems to be, and/or that HRC has distanced herself from the ideology of its founders, I'll be happy to read it.

[elleng]

179. Do you know who,

among 'popular' Dems, have been active in DLC over the last years? LOTS, and most of us just plain Dems had no idea about the existence of this entity.

Leaders' forum: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=106

Current DLC leaders: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=253434


Bill and close friends of his 'established' DLC some years ago, and they were until rather recently, I think, a rather powerful 'arm' of Dem party. They sounded good to many Dems, who had no idea that a contest of sorts was brewing.

Founders principles:

'As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

President Bill Clinton, in his speech to the 1998 DLC Annual Conference, said, " are reviving center-left political parties throughout the industrialized world as people everywhere struggle to put a human face on the global economy. Today, less than 15 years after we started, the ideas pushed by the DLC are literally sweeping the world."

In April 1999, From hosted and moderated an historic conference, "The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century," which brought together five of the world's most prominent leaders of Third Way governments -- including U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema -- and highlighted the new power and common values of center-left reform movements on both sides of the Atlantic.'

Key documents:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194

I suggest care in calling names; there's a large gulf between PNAC and DLC, and those who know somethings about both will think suggestions here are ludicrous. I am unaware of DLC '

rinciples that one could associate with neo-conservatism,' and think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

[leftrightwingnut]

214. I see. Bill Clinton is a co-conspirator in the Iraq invasion?

Actually, I see your point. At the time, the DLC seemed pretty innocuous. I loved Bill.

But looking at this through the lens of history, your post is nothing short of frightening.

Blair, Schroeder, Kok, D'Alema -- England, Germany, Netherlands, Italy -- members of the coalition that invaded Iraq.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq seems to fit the neo-conservative agenda, doesn't it?

In anticipation of your response, yes, I'm wearing a tin foil hat: :tinfoilhat:

I'm going to bed. Catch you later. :-)

[elleng]

Hi, and thanks.

Yes, iraq is perfect neo-con. I have no idea what bill's role was; not too important, I think, because if he tried to persuade her against that vote, he didn't succeed.

We're just learning (finally being told by msm) that bush/pnac twisted arms to get allies into iraq; i'd like to get back to the old 'oil' info, that 'they' won't be satisfied w/o 'right' provisions in iraq constitution.

Because I've learned about dlc only 'recently,' I really don't have much to say, except that 'corporatist' approach to our government is a killer, and to the extent that such has had a role in recent 'banking' stuff, well, dlc dems bear responsibility.

Tin foil not necessary; hope you don't have headaches.

[elleng]

306. Talk about neo-cons and conspiracy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3052131

[frog92969]

149. *yawn*

[mmonk]

150. The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq

has a founding member by the name of Bob Kerrey if I'm not mistaken. The DLC is a nuanced brand of the same imperial outlook. They have always chastised democrats for being against the invasion and occupation until this election cycle where they are playing the "get out of Iraq" theme (which makes me suspicious). The Third Way is imperialism pretending to be humanitarian.

[paulk]

169. thank you

not that it will get much traction here in the Obama echo chamber formerly known as DU.

It's like the din drowns out an ability to reason.

I don't even see this as being about Hillary - mostly it offends me because it's such an insult to my intelligence.

[FatDave]

120. I've had the DLC's number for a long time

They are the number one reason why I opposed Hilary from day one. And I'm really glad to see more and more threads like this going around. More people need to be aware. Rank and file democrats have no idea about the DLC and what they stand for, so please, spread the word in the real world too.

[Duder]

121. Well done. n/t

[Baby Snooks]

122. Republicrats

Why do people assume the "neo-cons" were only Republicans?

[Ichingcarpenter]

302. That takes time to see the real players in the game

and how they interact in the leading High school cliques.

It's not rocket science, we have all seen this shit before.

[Norrin Radd]

123. kr

[leftrightwingnut]

124. Marshall's profile on rightweb is enough to damn the DLC in my book.

I've heard rumors that Clinton would bomb Iran if Bush hadn't pulled it off by the time he left office. Now I know where that notion comes from. Thanks for putting it all together for me.

Will Marshall, cofounder of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and head of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), has been a leading figure in the effort to push the Democratic Party toward aggressive foreign policy, in particular in the "war on terror." A contributor to PPI's Blueprint magazine, Marshall often strives to distinguish his positions from those of the George W. Bush administration while maintaining a distinctly interventionist take on foreign policy. In an April 2007 Blueprint article, Marshall wrote: "One welcome casualty of the Iraq war is the myth of an imperial America. If the United States can't impose its will on a small country like Iraq, it's probably not bent on world domination. The greater danger, in fact, is that the United States, burned by its misadventures in Iraq, will sheathe its sword and step back from world leadership. If that happens, who else is going to confront rogue states, genocide, and other threats to international order?"

In the introduction to the 2006 book With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, Marshall promoted what he called "progressive internationalism" as opposed to the "conservative unilateralism" of the George W. Bush administration. He argued that the Iraq War is part of a larger strategy for "building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy," and that the "Bush Republicans have been tough but they have not been smart" in directing the course of the war in Iraq. Part of being smart is "using our strengths," wrote Marshall. "Democrats must be committed to preserving America's military predominance, because a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership."

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

In other words, the "war on terror" is justified. Bush just hasn't been doing it right.

[defendandprotect]

161. PNAC evidently intends making it to Iran . . . . via Iraq . . .

In an April 2007 Blueprint article, Marshall wrote: "One welcome casualty of the Iraq war is the myth of an imperial America. If the United States can't impose its will on a small country like Iraq, it's probably not bent on world domination. The greater danger, in fact, is that the United States, burned by its misadventures in Iraq, will sheathe its sword and step back from world leadership. If that happens, who else is going to confront rogue states, genocide, and other threats to international order?"

I'd say invading another country in an act of aggression --- an "illegal" war -- is imperialism.
Though, resurrecting VN-syndrome, we must note that it seems more like the seeking of perpetual war than actually bringing the occupation to any conclusion; especially, total removal of troops.
We've built more than 14 military bases there already --- and a huge Taj Mahal type Embassy.

"World leadership" now seems to be code for imperialism . .. !!!!

[Malidictus Maximus]

318. Who else?

"If that happens, who else is going to confront rogue states, genocide, and other threats to international order?"

Sounds like *WE* are the rogue state. What right we have to tell any other state what they can or cannot do exists only in the fervid minds of people who should be locked up.

[defendandprotect]

361. amen . .. amen ...!!

[omega minimo]

125. thanks for the info, Swampy

:hug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3051275

[defendandprotect]

126. Thanks swamprat . . this is something that DU needs to have kept in front of them --- !!!!

And, not only in regard to concerns about HRC ---
but to get DUers informed about the PNAC ---
what they've supported in the past --- the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" event in order to override
the public's distaste for wars of aggression as we've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq - Iran? --
for control of ME/Oil.

The PNAC has a huge agenda --- and it's been afire in the minds of many for decades ---
see LBJ speech in 1957? --- re control of outer space as "the highest hill" --- and
militarizing the skies/Star Wars.

This is a putrid organization which still exists, IMO, because the public doesn't know anything
much about them---!!!

[lonestarnot]

130. K & R!

Just look at the faces supporting her that have been shown lately. It's bordering on creepy.

[MagickMuffin]

132. I've researched Will Marshall and you did an EXCELLENT JOB, SwampRat

One of the things that pissed me off about his views are how they are willing to throw the Liberals, Progressives, Minorities, of the Democratic Party under the bus AFTER they get our votes.

We don't fit in with their agenda. I mean how could we, knowing most of us are anti-war, anti-warmongering, and war profiteering.

Yet, that is how they make their ill gotten riches. Off the backs of the poorest of poor, signing up for the armed services to get ahead in life with some of the benefits the military provides them, education, housing loans, among other things.

But now with stop loss in place these guys will be lucky to see a dime, when you hear about soldiers who now have to pay back the medical treatment they receive when they come back wounded and broken in spirit. It just shows the money that is funding the wars are going to BIG Contractors. It was NEVER intended for the soldiers.

Whenever the funding is about to be cut off what is the first thing that gets touted out?

Answer: "Think of the soldiers." "You don't care about the soldiers." "The Democrats HATE the soldiers!"

A perfect example started back in the 90's that the Democrats hated the military, and really reared its ugly head in the 2000 (S)election when the republicons used the military against Al Gore in Florida. The republicons used the example of President Clinton closing bases, although they conveniently forgot Poppy Bush started closing bases back when he was president.

The soldiers have been used as cannon fodder for the sake of the privileged few.

Thanks for putting this out there for the ones who might not know about it.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

147. Everything SwampRat does is excellent.

:kick:

[Lost4words]

135. k & r !

8643

[Heathen57]

137. Thank you, Swamprat

for a well researched and well written post. I have had my concerns about anything changing if Hillary got in since she is a leader in the DLC. You have given me the information that verifies my concerns were correct.

Kicking this one. :kick:

[shenmue]

138. No.

More Obama supporters ginning up rumors and opinions as claims of fact. An implication doesn't mean shit. No events and no proof, but don't let that stop you...

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[Moochy]

154. Such a Strong Team!

From the DLC Website!

[Swamp Rat]

184. I am still officially a Kucinich supporter, thank you.

And if you had said I was a "Kucinich supporter ginning up rumors and opinions as claims of fact," you'd also be incorrect. I dislike gin. :D

[Kurovski]

261. Maybe Swamp Water?

1 (1.5 fluid ounce) jigger apricot brandy
1 (1.5 fluid ounce) jigger lime flavored vodka
2 cups prepared lemonade
1 cup ice

Sounds like a sure hangover to me.

[me b zola]

356. Free your mind...

...the rest will follow...

[Vilis Veritas]

139. Good work...

Hillary is an established player...

To bad people think that Bilderberg is tin foil hat stuff...The Hill is part and parcel with the global corporate agenda...

Peace.

[Hieronymus]

140. Hillary scares the hell out of me.

[EFerrari]

143. Will somebody please let ME kick this thread?

LOL.

Muy bien hecho, Swampy!

[Moochy]

151. You have my permission

:kick: to the :thumbsup:

[OzarkDem]

145. Short answer - no

Neither Bill nor Hillary supports PNAC or their vision.

Apparently they tried to sell the idea to Bill when he was in office, but he refused to go along with it.

[Swamp Rat]

195. Thank you for responding.

I hope you are right. :hi:

[frog92969]

153. K&R

Thank you for this great post.

[still_one]

157. why not ask her if she supports pnac, in fact

i have never heard that question ever asked directly of anyone

not many people even know what pnac is

why does the msm never bring it up on anyone?

[defendandprotect]

165. Why not submit that question to our corporate-press --- ???

Maybe even C-span . . . you never know --- call in?

[Swamp Rat]

200. Apparently the Pravda does not ask 'those' questions.

During the last debate, I kinda wish Hillary had walked over to Tim Russert and just socked him in the jaw. :D

[Kurovski]

159. Kick. (nt)

[Tatiana]

162. Outstanding. I am bookmarking this for later analysis. BTW, Bill Clinton has something in common

with Barack Obama. Apparently, they http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print">both opposed the war from the start.

Who knew?

[defendandprotect]

167. One of the considerations re Iraq is even if end war you have to...

ensure that a technical occupation doesn't continue ---
we've built 14 military bases and a Taj Mahal of an Embassy ---

I know HRC has talked about keeping some troops there ---

I think we're naive is we don't understand this is about gaining control of
ALL of the Middle East --- they will find a way to attack Iran ---

[Tatiana]

173. I wouldn't be opposed to selling that shameful exercise in opulence of an embassy.

Maybe the Saudis are interested?

They will only manage to attack Iran if Clinton (who has already voted her support) or McCain are elected President. That's why this election is literally life or death. Thousands of American military personnel as well as Iranian civilians are at stake.

[defendandprotect]

176. I'm keeping my fingers crossed you're correct . .. .

but Cheney certainly seems to be trying still --

Iran is more important than Iraq to them . . . ????

[mrdmk]

164. K and R

In reality, the anti-war crowd was screwed when Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards dropped out of the race.

My guess is that we will be in a war with Iran before the end of the Bush Jr. regime. So whoever becomes the President of the United States in 2009 will have a real mess on their hands. At this time, it would not bother me if John McCain became President just so this country would get rid of the Republican Party and rewrite a new Constitution. This time to write a Constitution so corporations will have absolutely no political power what-so-ever (not to mention a few other things that need clearing up).

[ClayZ]

168. #100 K and R

Thanks Swamp Rat..

I have been getting the feeling that she has that PNAC AGENDA tilt.:hide:

[defendandprotect]

170. WHY isn't this thread appearing in the main GD --- ?????

This is an important thread for all of DU to read ----

[L0oniX]

171. Kicking. Swamp Rat kicks arse

:headbang:

[Infinite Hope]

172. HOLY SHIT! I always assumed it was so, but even *I* am shocked by some of this information! n/t

[Kurovski]

175. Kick. (nt)

[greyghost]

177. KICK!

[donheld]

178. Thanks SwampRat

Great work.

[Octafish]

181. Gawsh! Never knew all that. Thanks, Swamp Rat!

So that's why there's so much of a Plan B shine around McSame.

Previously, the worst I knew -- after the Jackson BCCI Stephens angle -- are connections to the Organized Religious Right.

Hillary's Prayer: Hillary CLinton's Religion and Politics

The info makes a solid case for cooption by the Big War business.

[Swamp Rat]

191. Qué tal, Señor Pulpo.

:D :hi:

"Is she triangulating—or living her faith?"

Religion as a political tool... who'dv thunk it?



¿Todo bien, carnal?

[Octafish]

211. Ronald McHitler™

That!



...is the best name for the Military Industrial Stupidity Complex I've ever heard.

¡Felíz Pascua, Hermano!

Nosotros bien, pero triste. Un tio bueno murio hoy. Buen hombre. Por mucha parte de su vida, trabajo tres trabajos para mandar los hijos al colegio. Buen, buen hombre.

[Ichingcarpenter]

215. McHitler™ with Ronald Reagan as the clown that started it all

who fed the Chimp we have now!






SwampRat you got to do a photoshop on that theme
Bonzo is georgie!!!!!

Thanks Octafish!

[Swamp Rat]

219. ¡Pobrecito!

:hug: Pues, que descanse en paz, y Dios le bendiga. O8)

[Kurovski]

186. Kick. (nt)

[Miss Chybil]

188. Yes, that's why her husband answered their call by toppling Saddam Hussein

and went along with their plan to destabilize the Middle East in order to create a "more perfect union" of ME countries under the flag of democracy. I can see it so clearly now! Thanks for pointing that out for me.

/sarcasm

[Hutzpa]

197. Heres a challenge for everyone

google this 'Hillary Clinton the Family Cult' I double there you

Excellent post Swamp...

:thumbsup:

[lonestarnot]

201. What's a double there you?

[Hutzpa]

231. Thats the best you got? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

205. Doug Coe and "The Family?" ... Barbara Ehrenreich article:

This really deserves its own thread. I know very little about this.

___________________________

"Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

by Barbara Ehrenreich

(snip)

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

(snip)

At the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family's young women's group. And, at the Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.""

(snip)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

[dana_b]

217. okay, I took the bait.

if that's true, that's f***in' creepy! How reliable is The Nation?
I can't stand the thought of some elitist fundamentalist group trying to control the country. It contradicts what Clinton says she stands for.

[Hutzpa]

228. You think n/t

[lonestarnot]

204. She used to be a pug and she's still a pug.

[grantcart]

223. I have to decide - me - holy moly now how do I sleep

I am going to rec so some other guy has to read this and let him decide

[saltpoint]

235. (post relocated)

[grantcart]

239. This is just a guess but I am guessing you did not intend to reply to my

whimsical reply to the excellent OP

[saltpoint]

240. It's an excellent guess. I parked the truck in your spot and will

promptly move it.

Lo siento mucho.

[Ichingcarpenter]

245. For an old Fart.... you really do kick ass sometimes!

The village analogy is even funny since the collaborative author of that
book said Hillary didn't give her credit for that either, which
we didn't know back then.


Link to the writer's thoughts on this.

http://www.awpwriter.org/magazine/writers/btodd01.htm

[saltpoint]

249. Howdy, Ichingcarpenter. I moved the post downthread a bit so as not

to hassle grantcart, after having responded to grantcart's excellent post.

grantcart was a lot more gracious than I was alert.

[Kurovski]

237. Kick. (nt)

[saltpoint]

241. In many campaigns there is a presence -- a signal -- encoded for

constituent groups as to a candidate's intent if elected.

Both parties' candidates do this. Politicians everywhere do this.

So the closer guess on the future lies with the person keennest on picking up on that signal. Dubya tends to use right-wing fundie rapture language embedded in other topics as a signal to the Dobsons and Robertsons that he's their guy.

Another signal is the absence of that signal. I think it's characteristic of Sen. Clinton's campaign that we don't hear the IT TAKES A VILLAGE signal very much at all, no matter how definitional she sought to make it in earlier years. We don't hear the signal of Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman she invoked vividly during the 90s.

We don't hear those signals in her now.

Progressives who might have been hoping to hear about that village of which they are residents and about Mrs. Roosevelt, still deeply admired, have not migrated to Sen. Clinton's campaign. Labor groups liked Kucinich and Edwards and in very large numbers now, Barack Obama. Clinton's labor support is lukewarm at best. Why has Mrs. Clinton abandoned Mrs. Roosevelt in the New Deal past, and why hasn't she rescued the vitality of that social contract for our collective futures?

What are we hearing if we aren't hearing that progressive signal, if its presence is so faint that we can hardly hear it all? The OP asks if what we're hearing instead is the muffled, garbled voice of Mrs. Clinton's too-conservative political affiliations.

I think that's a real good question. And I'd like to hear Hillary Clinton answer it.

[Swamp Rat]

248. Yes, that is it in a nutshell.

What are her intentions?

So far, I really dislike what her surrogates and affiliates have said and done.

Thank you Old Crusoe for continuing the conversation. I need to get a bite to eat, again, but I'll check back here soon. ;)

[saltpoint]

251. If you're rushing out to eat more Creole cuisine, you're making a LOT of

us damned jealous.

[Swamp Rat]

289. just salad and lasagna this time.

I did have berled shrimp earlier though. ;) :D

[lonestarnot]

255. Suck up a bottom feeder in my name!

:hug: :toast:

[lonestarnot]

252. Too interested in becoming the next unitary executive with all the power bushitler has created.

[saltpoint]

256. Hi, lonestarnot. Yes. It's too easy to sense the 'I and Me" energy in

Mrs. Clinton.

The "we the people" voice is faint.

[lonestarnot]

257. Faint?

All she can hear is the damn train. How are you friend?

[saltpoint]

260. LOL! She's got those pearls on and she's got Aunt Geraldine race-baiting

on FOX News. She's a shoe-in for sure!

Doin' good. I hope the same's true for you, good person.

[lonestarnot]

263. Not another Minnie Pearl post, Yes. Another!

I see price tag dangling from her hat! And it will cost us a freak'n (freak'n only for you) bundle.

[saltpoint]

265. The many pearls of Minnie Pearl.

I bet Minnie was more frugal with her budget than the Clinton campaign.

[lonestarnot]

267. It takes money to croney with the bushitlers you know.

[saltpoint]

269. Big money. Wild times.

I wish Denver was next week.

[lonestarnot]

272. Brother me too!

[havocmom]

350. Her behavior is all about that, isn't it?

I don't see much love and devotion to the needs of the nation in her actions.

[Ichingcarpenter]

253. Damn you, now I have to follow you here

For an old Fart.... you really do kick ass sometimes!
The village analogy is even more ironic since the collaborative author of that
book said Hillary didn't give her credit for that either, which
we didn't know back then.


Link to the writer's thoughts on this because she didn't want to take
the sniper's bullet for an intellectual pietist.

http://www.awpwriter.org/magazine/writers/btodd01.htm

[Tatiana]

292. WOW. This is such an astute observation. n/t

[DerekJ]

247. This post scares the shit out of me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

250. NeoLibs = NeoCons

The only difference is that the NeoLibs are better at decorating themselves as benevolent colonialists.

[TahitiNut]

278. They play "good cop" vs. "bad cop" on the social wedge issues ...

... but the corporatist takeover is as consistent as a left-right-left-right cadence, goosestepping into a strange future where all rights and liberties are for sale to the highest bidders. Nothing but entitlements.

[tiptoe]

259. Hubby was to Hillary what Monica was to hubby. NAFTA was an accomm' for WalMart's ex-BrdDir, Hillary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2598270&mesg_id=2599065

She could no more leave Bill at home than she could abandon Chelsey [sic]. They were a STRONG TEAM in Bills time and they will continue to be one no matter where they end up. Bill never made a single decision without consulting Hillary. Not one...(leaving out his sexual dalliances) Every single adviser during the Clinton Administration said that was the way it was. If you elect a Clinton you do indeed get two for the price of one...

[Emit]

266. Liberals and Neocons: Together Again

~snip~

Although PNAC's 1997 statement of principles included only prominent right-wing figures – many of whom later joined the first-term Bush administration – the neocon policy institute has repeatedly reached out to liberals to give its public letters to the Congress and the president the gloss of bipartisanship....

Its new call for congressional leaders to increase overall U.S. troop levels includes endorsement of key liberal analysts. Among the signatories are the leading foreign policy analysts at the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute, which are closely associated with the Democratic Party. The endorsees of the letter are largely neoconservatives who are principals in such neocon-led institutes as PNAC, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the Center for Security Policy. However, this call for a larger expeditionary force was also signed by prominent liberal hawks, including Michael O'Hanlon, Ivo Daalder, James Steinberg, and Will Marshall – all of whom have signed previous PNAC letters and policy statements.

~snip~

Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons

The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.

~snip~

Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on postwar Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. ...

In late 2002 PNAC's Bruce Jackson formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq that brought together such Democrats as Senator Joseph Lieberman; former Senator Robert Kerrey, the president of the New School University who now serves on the 9/11 Commission; PPI's Will Marshall; and former U.S. Representative Steve Solarz. The neocons also reached out to Democrats through a sign-on letter to the president organized by the Social Democrats/USA, a neocon institute that has played a critical role in shaping the National Endowment for Democracy in the early 1980s and in mobilizing labor support for an interventionist foreign policy.

The liberal hawks not only joined with the neocons to support the war and the postwar restructuring but have published their own statements in favor of what is now widely regarded as a morally bankrupt policy agenda. Perhaps the clearest articulation of the liberal hawk position on foreign and military policy is found in an October 2003 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is a think tank closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council.rategy draws "a sharp distinction between this mainstream Democratic strategy for national security and the far left's vision of America's role in the world. In this document we take issue with those who begrudge the kind of defense spending that we think is necessary to meet our needs, both at home and abroad; with folks who seem to reflexively oppose the use of force; and who seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes." Among the other liberal hawks who contributed to the Progressive Internationalism report were Bob Kerrey; Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution and the National Endowment for Democracy; and Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The repeated willingness of influential liberal leaders and foreign policy analysts, such as Marshall, O'Hanlon, and Daalder, to join forces with the neoconservative camp has bolstered PNAC's claim that its foreign policy agenda is neither militarist nor imperialist but one that is based on a deep respect for human rights, democracy, and universal moral values. Other liberal hawks signing the recent PNAC letter include New Republic editor Peter Beinart; Steven Nider, director of security studies at the Progressive Policy Institute; James Steinberg, director of Brooking's foreign policy studies program and former director of the State Department's Policy Planning office during the Clinton administration; Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund and former program officer at the Joyce Foundation; and Michelle Flournoy, a self-described "pro-defense Democrat" who is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and served in the Clinton administration in the DOD's strategy secretariat. Having Yale historian Paul Kennedy, the author of The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, sign the new letter was a major coup for PNAC.

~snip~

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2030.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/barry/?articleid=4799

[Kurovski]

273. So THAT'S what Bush meant by being "a uniter".

I'll be gosh-darned.

[Ichingcarpenter]

276. Part of the battle has been over the years Neoliberalism on the world stage

as being synonymous with being liberal,
which Bill Clinton exposed in his dealings as
a philosophical contradiction of diametrically noncongruent aspirations
of the economic parties involved.

NeoLiberalsim has failed the third world and this world

[Swamp Rat]

297. Just scratching the surface, Emit...

... there's a lot more substance behind that copper patina. :kick:

[opihimoimoi]

290. K&R all the way from Kaneohe Bay

Opi...come, we go eat

[Swamp Rat]

301. Opi say 'Maui... Swampy say 'ok... I come'

big fish, bue water... green coconut on ice in cooler... cook pig underground all night .... mmmm! ;)

[opihimoimoi]

323. Maui no ka oi, olelo pa iai kanakea kea?...Hele mai ai mahi/ulua e poi

LOL....Ehh, white man talk Hawaiian? Come we eat mahi/travelly and poi

LOL...:toast:

[dailykoff]

291. I think this is why she doesn't need to worry about winning primaries.

She's got the CIA, New York Times, CNN, and Bush White House behind her, and friends like that can make her dreams come true.

:scared:

[frog92969]

295. Join me in the crossing of the fingers.

Yes we can!

[dailykoff]

354. Thanks, I will!

Obama is a tremendously intelligent guy and I have no doubt he can sweep the EC in November in a fair fight. But he's up against the whole dirty rotten shebang, and if I were guilty of what dick and junior are, I sure wouldn't want a blackmail-resistant Dem in the oval office. :(

On the bright side, Obama's slain more than a few dragons already, and I'm guessing he's aware of what he's up against, so I'm hoping he'll figure out how to pull through. But a certain vulture is already circling.

[caseycoon]

303. K&R Very informative and frightening. Thanks Swamp Rat. n/t

[H2O Man]

307. Very well done.

I think that you have raised extremely important things for people to consider. Thank you for this.

Of the three candidates now in the running, I think that McCain and Clinton represent a continuation of the current Middle East foreign policy. Barack Obama offers our country, and indeed the world, an option of progressive change.

[ima_sinnic]

313. great research, fabulous thread--something I've sensed about her--

--her allegiance is NOT to We The People, it is to a policy of imperialism and global plunder (code-named "spreading democracy," PNAC in the guise of "Democrats")--everyone needs to think about her real priorities.

:kick:

[happygoluckytoyou]

314. ALREADY DONE.... PUT A FORK IN AMERICA

[rosesaylavee]

315. K & R

[berni_mccoy]

319. Swamp Rat, you deserve serious recognition for this great work. K&R!

:kick:

[bigtree]

321. so you answer your own question with innuendo?

what a crock of shit.

[leveymg]

322. How the world has changed since * & the neos took this to its logical end, proving it all wrong

Hillary may have seemed on the right track, in 1998. If only because the Clinton Administration had the benefit of the doubt, and for lack of a clearly articulated alternative. Today, it's much clearer where the DLC-PNAC road leads. It just paved the way for the Bush-Cheney program of imperial overreach.

Now leaving Lower Catastrophe, next stop Utter Ruin.

[madokie]

325. I see this as the last chance we have to get it right

Its upon our watch that we've allowed this all to happen and I see the Hillary as a continuation of the present policies which is not whats best for me as a member of a group nor as an individual, my children and grand children deserve better. This is the most important election in my lifetime, maybe even in the lifetime of our country. We have to get it right this time, there won't be another chance. We must have a clean break from this bfee as Obama is. simple

[mdmc]

326. too late for an R

:toast: Hello!

[workinclasszero]

328. Fuck the DLC chicken hawk neocons

They are a cancer in the democratic party body. They are the reason the dem party is weak. Look at all the damage DLC neocons have done to the election this year. It when from a landslide, overwhelming, historic realignment election to maybe winning by a nose and prolly four more years of rethug obstruction.

Cut the DLC out or die dems.

[YOY]

358. "Reagan Democrats"...

I have a feeling when Obama is elected we'll see some Obama Republican's come over. Mostly young folks...smart enough to not watch Fox and to realize when they have made a mistake, dumb enough to have gotten scared by Bush II and voted for him in 2004, but too young to realize that Reagan pushed the Republican party waaaaaaaaaay to the right.

[bbgrunt]

330. Thanks Swamprat. Great job. k and r

[redqueen]

332. I do suspect that that might be the case, yes.

The DLC / PPI / neo-con ties are too important to simply pretend they don't exist. I don't like neo-libs, this is why.

[K Gardner]

334. K&R

[NoSheep]

338. I have thought from the beginning the fact that she voted for the war

tells me everything I need to know. I knew enough to realize it would be a disaster and I did NOT have her experience, wasn't the first lady for two terms or a congress-person. She should have been smarter is what one might think...she IS smart is what I think. She proved that to me during the debates. Someone as intelligent as she is should NOT have made a "mistake" like this.

[truedelphi]

370. I think that you and I both know it was no "mistake"

I remember seeing her giving a speech about the need to go against Iraq. She was totally passioniate about the need to go to the war. SHe cited again and again her having been to Ground Zero and seeing the horrors there.

She is one of them. A Neo COn with a Great Big "D" that stands for Damned!

[govegan]

339. K&R

Fits right in with Scottie Nearing's words:

"Another consequence of natural and social forces operating through the agency of change is the rat race for wealth, prestige, and power which is the central motive of western civilization. At the individual level the wealth-power rat race is carried on by those who devote their talents and energies to getting ahead and keeping ahead. They are not satisfied merely to survive. They strive for recognition, for prestige. Their declared aim is security. Their real goal is the exercise of power. Hunger for power animates them, corrupts them, and finally consumes them. They lead the rat race, enjoy its honors, grow paunchy with its rewards.

The most successful of the rat race leaders constitute a wealth-prestige-power oligarchy, a self-selected minority which initiates policy and directs the appartus of exploitation. The oligarchs aim to gain and keep a monopoly of wealth, prestige, and power and from this vantage point to get a monopolist's share of available goods and services.

Where possible the oligarchy seeks to perpetuate itself, handing wealth and power from father to son, generation after generation, thus converting a ruling group into a ruling, exploiting class, controlling and operating a state apparatus If designed to safeguard and extend its wealth and power. Yesterday the process was a rat race, today it is a class dictatorship. If it survives until tomorrow it will have consolidated its position and have become a caste structure, perpetuating the privileges and prerogatives of those who enjoy privileges and wield power."

The DLC seems to be very much at the center of the "wealth-prestige-power oligarchy."

We are getting perilously close to the "tomorrow" that Nearing described, but it is not inevitable.

I have more hope that Obama will not be animated, corrupted and finally consumed by a hunger for power than I do for his major opponents at this point, including Mr. Nader. As we watch this oligarchy consumed by its insane, and seemingly insatiable, lust for power, we also see this same insane lust threatening to consume the planet itself.

The aforementioned oligarchy is antithetical to a government of the people, by the people and for the people (I know I read that phrase somewhere before).

[juno jones]

341. Gonna kick again

Great thread!

[parasim]

342. and here's another K & R

Great post! Thanks for this.

[FourScore]

347. Good post. Thanks, SR! n/t

[Lerkfish]

353. swamp rat, check out my post #352. above

another research link for you.

[AntiFascist]

355. K&R, Excellent post Swamp Rat!

This is precisely why I turned against the Clintons when I learned about the DLC agenda of supporting PNAC.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

371. No. The Theory Is Ludicrous, Tin Foil Hattish, And Is Embarrassing To Even See Here.

Seriously, things have gotten really stupid here now. What rubbish.

[bonito]

372. Accurate And Well Done Great Post!

Clinton/Lieberman = McCain/Lieberman

[Tatiana]

378. Best GDP Post Ever???? n/t

[dana_b]

386. good post. thanks for the info.

[Richard Steele]

387. It's a question worthy of 160 Recs! nm

[Kurovski]

399. Kick. (nt)

[Kurovski]

402. Kick. (nt)

[Pachamama]

406. Great post....thanks for putting out facts that all should be aware of when it comes to Hillary!

:kick:

As each day passes and the more I hear from the Clinton campaign and watch how they operate and then to know the kind of things like those posted above, and I realize that there is no way I want her to be our nominee.

I see from the above attacks against you and this post that posting facts and speaking the truth against Hillary will get you put in the category with "Judas" as Carville will state... :eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

408. Oi Pachamama!

How are ya? :hug:

I'd rather hang out with Judas than Carville any day. :D

I'll vote for Hillary if she is the Dem candidate, mainly because of future SCOTUS nominees, but I much prefer someone like Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards.

[Catherina]

409. 160 recommends? This gets kicked to rise above tonight's spam n/t

[dailykoff]

410. I'd like to see it pinned. (n/t)

[Kurovski]

413. Good idea.

:kick:

[Emit]

411. Swamp Rat

I'm glad to see so many DUers viewing and responding to this thread

Good going

:thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

412. Me too.

You deserve as much credit. :thumbsup:

[Grinchie]

417. I'd like to see this much discussion regarding Peter Paul vs Hillary Clinton

There is plenty on this story on YouTube, but I'm having difficulty vetting it.

What do other trained and analytical eyes see that I have missed.

It seems to have been Quashed heavily by HRC and friends in the media.

[Kashka-Kat]

418. ONE OF THE MOST pertinent questions ever – and one that should be asked of Obama & McCain as well

I have a sinking sick feeling that all roads lead to NeoCon – if Obama’s economic adviser is or was Goolsbee, a Chicago School economist ala Milton Friedman the big daddy of neoliberalism AKA neoconservatism then this has ominious implications…. If you’ve read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” then you know what I mean. The modus operandi has often been the Trojan horse type of candidate (ex Poland’s Solidarity party.)

Good post but we need to be digging deeper. Instead of this Entertainment Tonite style of scandal politics that’s permeates all media (including this very forum) the questions should be – which candidate allies with which doctrines, can any of them be “gotten to” to moderate the more extreme forms of capitalism/corporatism.

[frog92969]

420. Kick!

[Kurovski]

421. Kick. (nt)

[Individualist]

426. Excellent post, Swampy.

The truth about the vile DLC can't be repeated often enough.

[Kurovski]

431. Kick. (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

433. Thanks Pelé!

:D

[Kurovski]

434. KEEKEE-KEEKEE...

for Mr. Swamp.

[Swamp Rat]

435. Watch this:

:D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5258209&mesg_id=5260213

[Swamp Rat]

443. pontapé

:D

[SunsetDreams]

447. This is freaking scaring the hell out of me!

If this is true, which one has to really give it some thought, considering all the sources, we need to resoundingly say no to the DLC.

Thanks Swamprat for all the research, and thank you to everyone who added to this thread with more research.

This gives me something to think about.

[DerekJ]

444. kick

[DerekJ]

445. kick

[DerekJ]

446. kick

[Hippo_Tron]

448. SwampRat, it's not that simple

America is more or less an Empire and has been since 1945. I don't say that as though it's inherently a bad thing because there are some good things we've done as a superpower (there hasn't been another World War). Of course there are a hell of a lot of bad things we've done as a superpower. I do think there is a better solution for global stability and welfare than an American empire, but I don't know what it is, and I certainly know that it's not politically feasible at the moment.

PNAC is a group of nutjobs. They are under the impression that we can successfully invade Iran just like they were under the impression that we could do it in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton isn't going to invade Iran because she's smart enough to know what a fucking disaster that would be. The fact that you've found 5 degrees of separation between her and PNAC is simply due to the fact that she, like almost every other politician, is going to maintain the status quo to a great degree as far as our imperial foreign policy is concerned and that includes the Middle East. Maybe with more progressive Senators like Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer you could get 8-10 degrees of separation but they all to a certain extent support the policies that keep the empire going. Dennis Kucinich even voted for the authorization to use military force against terrorism which was far broader in the executive authority that it granted than just the authority to invade Afghanistan.

In short...

1) America is an Empire

2) There isn't a damn thing we can do to change that in the short run

3) Best we choose the Emperor that we think will do the best job

[readmoreoften]

449. And Barack and Michelle Obama are connected to the Council on Foreign Relations.

He gave a speech at an affiliate last year (it's on his website) and was referenced by Robert Kagan in the Washington Post article "Obama the Interventionist". CFR is basically an organization that promotes "one world government" and so forth. Connected to the trilateral commission.

What scares me is that I think they're all hand picked by these nightmare consortiums of neoliberal lizards. I don't think Clinton is connected specifically to the PNAC. They seem to really hate her. Kagan and Kristol prefer Obama. But I'm pretty sure that Clinton is connected to Bilderberg. My sense is that all this stuff is same goal different method. The PNAC are a bit more pro-active in their dreams of global takeover. The other folks just want to bleed everyone to death slowly through economic inequality.

No one is going to get elected who isn't involved with these people. It truly is a lesser of two evils. Of course maybe these candidates don't 'really' believe in all this stuff and maybe they just show up to 'network'. Maybe they're just 'keeping their powder dry' until they get elected. Yeah. Maybe.

[madrchsod]

450. jeez what`s the big deal?

hillary and her friends have nothing but love for the great teeming masses of the great unwashed.

we should be grateful for the crumbs they shower at our feet....

welcome to the new world order

[Kurovski]

451. Kick. (nt)

[DerekJ]

452. kick

[DerekJ]

453. One more kick for those who forgot.

Hillary = DLC
DLC = Democratic NeoCons

[McCamy Taylor]

454. Will I get deleted if I say that this argument is hogwash? By this ALL Dems are NeoCons

and Exxon owns the rights to our first born sons.

Oh, and every time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you personally insert the working end of a bayonet into the abdominal cavity of an Iraqi civilian and give it a great big fatal twist. Because the crimes of the lowest, vilest most psychotic blood thirsty Blackwater mercenary... Is YOUR Crime.

Now, on an ethical level, that might be true, but how would be like to be dragged before the World Court and charged with specific acts of murder against Iraqi civilians because a soldier in your "employee" did it?

That is what you have to agree to if you accept the reasoning in this post which has become the equivalent of a zombie thread. Maybe one day someone will put it out of its misery.

[Moochy]

455. Kick

I hope this kick makes up for my Bad Karma tonite. :evilgrin: :kick:

[JohnnyLib2]

456. Oh, what the hell. Here's one for the kickin' cabal.

If the OP has been turned in for a grade, I'd sure like to know what that grade is.

Yes, this is :sarcasm: