The march to war by Democratic strategists. Two months after 9/11 they said "New World, New War"

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-16-08 09:30 PM
Original message

The march to war by Democratic strategists. Two months after 9/11 they said "New World, New War"

I watched Al Gore tonight as he endorsed Barack Obama. He spoke passionately against that war, just as he had done in 2003. He was one of the few who spoke out then against it.

I thought of the push to war and the organized way it happened.

The leaders and writers at the DLC came together quickly to get on board with the war on terrorism. I think about this horribly tragic war, and I realize that this think tank had controlled Democratic party policy for a decade. It was pretty obvious that Democrats would have gone along with the policy advice.

Nonetheless, it is scary stuff. Reading these pages about this issue that came out in November 2001 gives me chills. It was only two months, and it was like they had a whole issue planned...with articles by major Democrats basically going along with bringing down Saddam.

Here are the editors of the Blueprint Magazine giving their opinions on the road to war with Iraq.

Our first priority today is to fight and win the war against terrorism and to make America safe again

As former President Bill Clinton warns in his Blueprint article, we are engaged not only in the first war of the new millennium, but in the first battle for the "soul" of the 21st century -- one that will determine its ultimate direction for good or for ill.

Winning the war against terrorism abroad involves more than destroying the al-Qaida network and the Taliban regime that has protected it. It also means, as Sen. Joe Lieberman argues, that the war will not be over until we have neutralized other terrorist threats with global reach, including the mother of all state-sponsored terrorism, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

More from the November 11, 2001 magazine. Here are links to articles by major Democrats speaking out. Some articles are cautionary and sensible, but behind all is that constant drumbeat for war.

New World, New War

It seems that they were prepared to wage war the day the towers fell.

This is an article from that month's Blueprint which describes what a "just war" looks like.

How to Fight a Just War

The origins of the just war tradition are usually traced back to the fourth century and St. Augustine's masterwork, City of God. St. Augustine grapples with the undeniable anti-violent thrust of the Christian tradition, especially the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He comes to the conclusion that wars of aggression and self-aggrandizement -- like Rome's imperial wars -- are never acceptable. But there are occasions when violence may be necessary. Violence is never a normative good. It is better for an individual who professes Christianity to suffer harm than to commit it. But public officials are charged with protecting the safety of a people: The shepherd must tend the flock. For St. Augustine, the most potent casus belliis protecting the innocent from certain harm -- the innocent being those who are unable to defend themselves.

Parts of another article listed in the table of contents caught my eye. I realized this was what our Democrats in congress had to deal with...those who since the 80s had pretty much gone along with the advice by this group of strategists.

This article presents The Case against Saddam.

As Americans adjust to the new reality of bioterrorism, it is gratifying to see more and more fingers pointing to Iraq as a possible source of germ warfare. For too long, we have allowed the menace of Saddam Hussein's biowarfare program to continue unabated and unmolested. Now is the time to take drastic action against one of the most serious threats to world peace and stability.

Everything we know about Saddam tells us that he could be the culprit behind the first wave of anthrax attacks or that he could soon start a new one. Long before Osama bin Laden got to No. 1 on the FBI's most wanted list, the Iraqi leader was hard at work, employing top scientists and developing not only his much-talked-about nuclear program, but biological and chemical weapons as well.

..."Whether Saddam was involved in providing the spores and powder that hit the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Postal Service, and other institutions all over the country is irrelevant; it's his clear capability to do it that should concern us. Experts believe Saddam, who has the most biological know-how in the region, has been actively building up his bioterror supplies. Very few parties with a grudge against the United States have the ability and the means of producing the microbe in highly refined form. Of these, Iraq is the only one with a deep enmity toward the United States.

That was the beginning of the long reign of invoking fear and terror and pushing the talking point that we must be stronger than the Republicans on national security.

Since George W. Bush invaded a country that was no danger to us, I would say that overall he was pretty weak in national security. We could have played up that aspect, but unfortunately we did not.

There has been a lot of talk here lately about how Democrats in red states should act. The discussions came up when a Democrat in FL distanced himself from the party..saying he owed the party nothing.

It came up again when two Democrats from TN said Obama might have terrorist ties. The Democratic congressman and governor from that state have yet to defend Obama on those statements.

I disagree with those who say that Democrats in more conservative states have to go along to get along and re-elected. If you subscribe to such a theory, you end up in places like Iraq with no end in sight.